,5SL£kM'^0S 


Issued  October  12, 1912. 

U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 


0 
0 

1 

Q   ;! '-_^i\  A.  D.  MELVIN,  Chief  of  Bureau 


0  r~~~:.  BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— Bulletin   159. 


Bi  FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

I.  Winter  Fattening  on  Cottonseed  Meal,  Cottonseed 

Hulls,  Corn  Silage,  and  Johnson-Grass  Hay. 
II.  Wintering  Steers  followed  by  Summer  Fattening 

on  Pasture.  ^ 

III.  The  Value   of  Shelter  for  Fattening  Cattle  in  v;0'^ 

Alabama.  C^V« 

IV.  Early  Compared  with  Late  Fattening  of  Sig^SS^. 


on  Pasture 


red  with  Late  Fattening  of  Sjte^iJ^wji    >^^ 
DAN  T.  GRAY,  \^  ^ 

Professor  of  Animal  Industry,  Alabama  Polytechnic  Institute, 
AND 

W.  F.  WARD, 

Junior  Animal  Husbandman,  Animal  Husbandry  Division. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 

1912. 


Issued  October  12. 1912. 

U.  S.  DEPARTMEMT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— Bulletin   159. 

A.  D.  MELVIN,  CiHEF  of  Bureau. 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

I.  Winter  Fattening  on  Cottonseed  Meal,  Cottonseed 

Hulls,  Corn  Silage,  and  Johnson-Grass  Hay. 
II.  Wintering  Steers  followed  by  Summer  Fattening 
on  Pasture. 

III.  The  Value  of  Shelter  for  Fattening  Cattle  in 

Alabama. 

IV.  Early  Compared  with  Late  Fattening  of  Steers 

on  Pasture. 


BY 
DAN  T.  GRAY, 

Professor  of  Animal  Industry,  Alabama  Polytechnic  Institute, 

AND 

W.  F.  WARD, 
funior  Animal  Husbandman,  Animal  Husbandry  Division. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 

1912. 


BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY. 


Chief:  A.  D.  Melvin. 
Assistant  Chief:  A.  M.  Fareington. 
Chief  Clerk:  Charles  C.  Carroll. 

Animal  Uusbandry  Division:  George  M.  Rommel,  chief. 
Biochemic  Division:  M.  Dorset,  chief. 
Dairy  Division:  B.  H.  Rawl,  chief. 
Field  Inspection  Division:  R.  A.  Ramsay,  chief. 
Meat  Inspection  Division:  Rice  P.  Steddom,  chief. 
Pathological  Division:  John  R.  Mohler,  chief. 
Quarantine  Division:  Richard  W.  Hickman,  chief. 
Zoological  Division:  B.  H.  Ransom,  chief. 
Experiment  Station:  E.  C.  Schroedeb,  superintendent. 
Editor:  James  M.  Pickens. 
2 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 

Bureau  of  Animal  Industry, 

Washington,  D.  C,  July  10, 1912. 
Sm:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith,  and  to  recommend 
for  pubUcation  in  the  bulletin  series  of  this  bureau,  a  manuscript 
entitled  "Feeding  Beef  Cattle  in  Alabama,"  by  Messrs.  Dan  T.  Gray, 
professor  of  animal  industry  in  the  Alabama  Polytechnic  Institute, 
and  W.  F.  Ward,  junior  animal  husbandman  in  the  Animal  Hus- 
bandry Division  of  tliis  bureau. 

This  bulletin  presents  further  results  of  the  investigations  in  beef 
production  which  have  been  carried  on  during  the  past  seven  years 
by  the  bureau  in  cooperation  with  the  Alabama  Experiment  Station, 
former  pubUcations  being  Bulletins  103,  131,  and  147.  The  work 
is  being  continued  and  other  problems  relative  to  the  feeding  of  beef 
cattle  in  the  South  are  being  studied. 

Respectfully,  A.  D.  Melvin, 

Chief  of  Bureau. 
Hon.  James  Wilson, 

Secretary  of  Agriculture. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/feedingbeefOOgrayiala 


CONTENTS. 


I.   VPTNTER   FATTENING    OP   STEERS    ON    COTTONSEED   MEAL,    COTTONSEED    HULLS,  CORN 

SILAGE,    AND   JOHNSON-GRASS   HAY. 

Page. 

Introduction 9 

Object  of  the  experiment 9 

The  cattle 10 

Method  of  conducting  the  work 10 

Price  and  character  of  feeds 11 

Preliminary  feeding 11 

Daily  rations 12 

Daily  and  total  gains 14 

Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  gain 15 

Advantages  of  using  purchased  feeds , 17 

Value  of  barnyard  manure 17 

Financial  statement 18 

Slaughter  data 20 

Summary 20 

n.    WINTERING   STEERS   FOLLOWED   BY   SUMMER   FATTENING   ON   PASTURE. 

Introduction 22 

Object  of  the  work 22 

The  cattle : 23 

The  pastures 23 

The  winter  range 23 

Plan  of  the  feeding 24 

Character  and  price  of  the  feeds 25 

The  winter  feeding 26 

Daily  rations 26 

Weights  and  gains  during  winter  months 27 

Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  gain  during  the 

winter 28 

The  spring  cost  of  the  steers 29 

Fattening  the  cattle  on  pasture 30 

Daily  rations 31 

Weights  and  gains  on  pasture 32 

Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  gain 33 

Financial  statement  of  the  summer  feeding 34 

Slaughter  records 37 

Summary 37 

5 


6  CONTENTS. 

ni.    THE    VALUE   OF   SHELTER   FOR   FATTENING    CATTLE   IN    ALABAMA. 

Page. 

Introduction 40 

Plan  of  the  experiment 41 

The  cattle 41 

Preliminary  management  and  feeding 42 

Lota  and  shelter 42 

Character  and  price  of  feeds 43 

Daily  rations 43 

Weights  and  gains 44 

Quantity  and  co.^t  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  gain 44 

Profits  on  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  as  a  reiult  of  feeding  them  to  the  cattle. . .  45 

Financial  statement 45 

Summary 46 

IV.    EARLY   COMPARED   WITH   LATE   FATTENING    OP   STEERS   ON   PASTURE. 

Introduction 48 

Plan  of  the  work 48 

The  cattle  and  the  pasture 49 

Quality  and  price  of  feeds ; 50 

Daily  rations 50 

Total  and  daily  gains 52 

Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  gain 53 

Financial  statement 54 

Summary 55 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 


Among  the  facts  of  importance  demonstrated  in  this  bulletin  arc 
(1)  the  outstanding  value  of  a  ration  of  cottonseed  meal  and  cotton- 
seed hulls  as  a  standard  beef-making  ration  in  Alabama  when  fed 
in  winter;  (2)  the  small  necessity  for  shelter  for  beef  cattle  in  Alabama; 
and  (3)  the  great  importance  of  the  use  of  pasture  for  cattle  when 
fed  a  summer  ration  of  cottonseed  cake.  The  authors  have  opened 
up  an  additional  field  for  the  use  of  pasture  by  their  investigations 
of  the  relative  value  of  short  and  long  period  feeding  on  summer 
pasture. 

In  this  connection  I  take  the  opportunity  again  to  point  out  the 
importance  of  these  investigations  not  only  to  Alabama  and  other 
parts  of  the  South  but  to  the  entire  country  as  well.  This  work  is 
laying  the  foundation  for  rational  and  profitable  beef  production 
under  southern  conditions  and  will  grow  in  influence  with  the  advance 
of  the  boll  weevil  and  the  eradication  of  the  Texas-fever  cattle  tick. 
In  this  respect  it  will  be  worth  far  more  to  the  South  than  the  entire 
amount  of  the  appropriation  which  makes  it  possible. 

The  importance  of  the  work  to  the  country  at  large  lies  in  the 
fact  that  every  square  mile  freed  from  ticks  opens  up  just  that  much 
more  territory  to  beef  production  and  tends  to  offset  the  restriction 
of  the  western  range  by  settlement,  which  in  turn  has  already  greatly 
restricted  the  western  cattle  output.  With  the  extermination  of 
the  ticks  will  come  a  demand  for  information  on  how  to  feed  beef 
cattle  profitably,  and  that  demand,  I  believe,  can  be  met  very  largely 
by  the  results  of  these  investigations.  Prof.  Gray  and  his  assistants 
are  demonstrating  that  cattle  can  be  fed  in  Alabama  at  a  cost  far 
below  that  common  in  the  corn  belt,  and  this  often  with  inferior, 
underbred,  or  even  scrub  cattle.  If  such  results  can  be  obtained 
with  cattle  which  are  seldom  more  than  half  or  three-quarters  pure, 
what  may  we  not  in  reason  expect  with  the  improvement  in  breed- 
ing which  will  surely  follow  the  eradication  of  the  tick? 

The  United  States  faces  a  beef-cattle  shortage.  The  cattle  ranges 
of  the  West  are  every  year  being  diminished  in  area  by  settlement. 
In  the  South,  east  of  the  Mississippi  River,  are  enormous  areas  of 
practically  idle  land,  suitable  for  pasture,  where  beef  cattle  can  and 
should  be  raised  and  fattened.  Is  it  too  much  to  predict  that  in 
this  section  of  our  country  will  come  the  next  great  expansion  of 
the  beef-producing  business  in  America  ? 

George  M.  Rommel, 
Chief  of  Animal  Husbandry  Diinsion. 


FEEDING  BEEF  CAHLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


I.  WINTER  FATTENING  OF  STEERS  ON  COTTONSEED 
MEAL,  COTTONSEED  HULLS,  CORN  SILAGE,  AND 
JOHNSON-GRASS  HAY. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls,  the  two  feeds  which  in 
the  past  have  been  used  almost  exclusively  during  the  winter  months 
for  fattening  cattle  in  the  South,  have  advanced  in  price  very  matfe- 
rially  during  the  last  three  or  four  years.  This  advancement  in 
price  has  forced  the  southern  farmers  to  seek  feeds  with  which  to 
supplement  the  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls.  In  the  experiment  here 
reported,  sUage  and  Johnson-grass  hay  were  used  as  supplementary 
feeds  to  the  hulls.  Cottonseed  meal  was  the  only  concientrated  feed 
employed. 

Since  the  inauguration  of  the  cooperative  beef  work  by  the  Bureau 
of  Animal  Industry  and  the  Alabama  Experiment  Station  some 
results  have  been  published  relative  to  winter  fattening  of  steers,^ 
but  sUage  and  Johnson-grass  hay  were  not  introduced  into  any  of 
the  former  rations.  It  should  be  understood  that  this  bulletin  is 
only  a  report  of  the  progress  of  the  cooperative  beef  work,  as  the 
experiments  are  being  continued. 

OBJECT  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT. 

This  experiment  was  planned  with  the  following  objects  in  view: 

1.  To  determine  the  profit,  if  any,  in  fattening  a  good  grade  of 
cattle  in  the  winter  time  on  high-priced  feeds. 

2.  To  compare  a  ration  of  cottonseed  meal  and  huUa  alone  with  a 
second  ration  of  cottonseed  meal,  hulls,  and  silage,  and  with  a  third 
ration  of  cottonseed  meal,  huUs,  and  Johnson-grass  hay. 

The  steers  were  divided  into  three  lots  of  20  in  each,  and  were 
given  the  following  feeds : 

Lot  1. — Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  com  silage. 

Lot  2. — Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  huUs,  Johnson-grass  hay. 

Lot  3. — Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  huUs. 

>  See  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  103. 
54012°— Bull.  159—12 2  9 


10  FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

THE  CATTLE. 

Tho  cattle  were  better  than  the  average  cattle  of  the  South. 
They  were  all  purchased  in  Sumter  and  neighboring  counties  during 
the  fall  of  1909,  and  were  the  best  of  a  herd  of  about  300  head  of 
improved  cattle.  None  of  them  was  purebred,  but  all  had  beeP 
graded  up  by  the  use  of  Hereford,  Aberdeen-Angus,  and  Shorthorn 
sires.  They  varied  from  2  to  3  years  in  age.  The  average  weight 
of  each  animal  at  the  beginning  of  tho  test  was  approximately  830 
pounds,  so  they  were  larger  than  the  average  southern  cattle.  The 
increased  size  was  due  to  the  improved  beef  blood. 

As  these  cattle  were  better  than  the  average  cattle  of  the  State, 
they  cost  more  in  the  fall  than  is  usually  paid  for  Alabama  cattle! 
They  were  valued  at  3^  cents  a  pound  when  the  test  began,  Decem- 
ber 1,  1909. 

METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING  THE  WORK. 

The  cattle  were  fed  under  average  farm  conditions.  Mr.  F.  I. 
Derby,  a  farmer  and  stockman  of  Sumter  County,  Ala.,  agreed  to 
cooperate  with  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  and  the  Alabama 
Experiment  Station  in  this  work,  and  the  feeding  was  all  done  upon 
his  farm.  Mr.  Derby  furnished  the  cattle  and  the  feed,  and  the  work 
was  planned  and  the  feeding  carried  on  under  the  supervision  of  the 
authors  of  this  bulletin.  Mr.  J.  W.  Ridgway  was  stationed  upon  the 
farm  and  had  personal  supervision  of  the  experiment. 

No  artificial  shelter  was  provided  for  the  cattle  and  as  no  trees  were 
in  the  feed  lots,  they  did  not  even  have  the  protection  which  trees 
afford.  They  were  fed  in  the  open  fields,  as  no  shelter  is  needed  in 
Alabama  for  mature  fattening  cattle.  As  Mr.  Derby's  main  object 
in  feeding  cattle  is  to  enrich  his  farm,  the  cattle  were  fed  on  areas 
which  were  to  be  subsequently  planted  in  either  cotton  or  corn.  The 
cattle  were  fed  upon  fields  consisting  of  about  10  acres  of  land  to  each 
lot  of  20  cattle.  While  no  account  was  kept  of  the  amount  of  manure 
made,  still  it  is  known  from  subsequent  work  that  the  60  head  of 
cattle  made  at  least  1  ton  of  manure  each  day,  or  84  tons  for  the 
whole  feeding  period  of  84  days.  The  manure,  of  course,  added  very 
much  to  the  fertility  of  the  land  upon  which  it  was  dropped. 

Many  of  the  clay  soils  of  the  State  would  be  ruined  by  tramping 
if  the  cattle  were  permitted  to  stay  on  them  during  the  wet  winter 
weather.  The  soil  of  Mr.  Derby's  farm  is  a  light,  sandy  one,  so  the 
tramping  of  the  cattle  did  not  injure  it  materially.  However,  since 
this  work  was  done,  Mr.  Derby  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
winter  tramping  injures  even  a  sandy  soil,  so  hereafter  he  intends  to 
feed  in  sheds  and  barns  and  haul  the  manure  to  the  fields. 


WINTER  FATTENING  OP  STEEBS.  11 

The  steers  were  fed  twice  each  day  in  open  troughs  located  in  the 
fields.  Tho  troughs  were  made  so  that  they  could  be  moved  from 
place  to  place,  thus  insuring  an  even  distribution  of  manure  and 
avoiding  too  much  packing  of  the  soil  in  one  place.  The  steers  were 
fed  in  such  amounts  that  the  feed  was  all  eaten  within  a  few  hours 
after  it  was  put  before  them.  Many  feeders  keep  feed  in  the  troughs 
constantly,  but  more  satisfactory  results  are  secured  when  the  steers 
are  required  to  clean  the  troughs  after  each  meal.  An.  abundance  of 
pure  water  and  salt  was  provided  all  the  time. 

At  the  close  of  the  test  the  cattle  were  shipped  to  the  Louisville 
market  for  sale.  The  experimental  farm  was  located  four  miles  from 
Whitfield,  Ala.,  the  nearest  railroad  station,  and  the  cattle  were 
driven  to  that  point  to  be  loaded  on  the  cars. 

PRICE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  FEEDS. 

In  work  of  this  character  the  financial  statement  is  not  as  satisfac- 
tory as  could  be  wished,  because  the  prices  of  feed  as  well  as  of  cattle 
fluctuate  considerably  from  year  to  year.  Therefore  the  financial 
outcome  of  a  particular  experiment  may  not  be  duplicated  by  the 
cattle  feeder  owing  to  the  different  conditions  under  which  he  is 
operating.  The  prices  listed  in  this  bulletin  were  the  actual  prices 
paid  for  the  feeds  (except  what  was  raised  on  the  farm)  and  the  actual 
prices  realized  for  the  cattle.  This  test  was  conducted  during  the 
winter  of  1909-10 ;  prices  have  not  changed  materially  since  that  date. 
The  following  were  the  prices  of  the  feeds,  that  produced  on  the  farm 
being  estimated  at  local  rates: 

Per  ton. 

Cottonseed  meal $26.  00 

Cottonseed  hulls 7.  00 

Johnson-grass  hay 11.  00 

Silage  (produced  on  farm) 2.  50 

All  of  the  above  feeds  were  of  good  quality.  The  Johnson-grass 
hay  had  been  cut  at  the  proper  stage  and  was  of  excellent  quality. 
The  cattle  ate  it  with  considerable  relish.  The  silage,  after  the  first 
few  days,  was  also  of  good  quality  as  far  as  brightness  and  taste  were 
concerned.  The  corn  from  which  the  silage  was  made  did  not  have 
a  heavy  development  of  ear  as  the  stand  was  thick  and  the  planting 
was  not  made  until  June.  Probably  30  bushels  of  corn  to  the  acre 
would  have  been  secured  if  it  had  been  gathered.  The  cottonseed 
meal  was  fresh,  bright,  and  of  a  high  grade. 

PRELIMINARY  FEEDING. 

Some  of  the  steers  were  bought  as  early  as  November  1,  1909.  Mr. 
Derby  was  getting  his  cattle  together  for  winter  feeding,  so  the 
experimental  steers  were  placed  in  the  feed  lots  with  the  general  herd 
of  feeding  cattle  until  conditions  were  ready  for  the  experiment  to 


12 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


begin.  On  November  6  the  cattle  wore  all  started  on  a  small  amount 
of  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls.  This  amount  was  gradually  increased 
and  they  were  receiving  a  full  ration  of  the  meal  and  hulls  by 
November  15.  This  full  feeding  of  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  was 
continued  until  the  experimental  work  began.  On  December  1  the 
60  steers  to  be  used  in  the  experimental  work  were  selected  from  the 
general  herd  of  probably  300  steers;  they  were  divided  into  threelots 
of  20  steers  each,  tagged,  weighed,  and  placed  in  their  respective 
fields,  and  the  experiment  proper  was  begun.  The  period  previous 
to  December  1  was  considered  a  preliminary  period.  This  period  was 
introduced  so  that  the  cattle  would  have  an  opportunity  to  become 
accustomed  to  the  surroundings  and  the  feeds  before  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  test. 

DAILY  RATIONS. 

Many  farmers  injure  their  cattle  and  get  them  "off  feed"  by 
increasing  too  rapidly  the  cottonseed-meal  part  of  the  ration.  These 
cattle  had  been  in  a  preliminary  feeding  period  for  24  days  before  the 
real  test  began,  yet  each  steer  was  fed  only  4  pounds  of  cottonseed 
meal  daily  at  the  inauguration  of  the  experiment,  December  1.  Of 
course  the  amount  was  increased  from  time  to  time  as  the  cattle 
would  take  it  without  scouring,  but  at  no  time  did  the  steers  receive 
more  than  8  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  daily.  Many  farmers  would 
have  had  these  steers  on  a  daily  ration  of  10  pounds  of  cottonseed 
meal  within  10  days  after  the  feeding  began.  Scours,  dizziness,  stiff- 
ness, and  occasional  cases  of  blindness  are  almost  sure  to  follow  a 
heavy  feeding  of  cottonseed  meal.  In  the  event  of  such  troubles 
occurring  the  feeder  is  often  compelled  to  sell  under  unfavorable 
circumstances,  as  the  steers  can  not  be  held  profitably.  When  they 
are  marketed  under  such  circumstances,  the  buyer  is  almost  sure  to 
discriminate  against  them  because  of  their  poor  condition,  and  they 
consequently  sell  at  a  disadvantage  when  offered  to  the  packer  or 
butcher. 

The  following  table  outlines,  by  periods  of  28  days  each,  the 
amount  of  feed  given  each  steer  daily: 


Table  1.— 

Average  daily  ration  for  each  steer,  by  28-day  periods. 

Lotl. 

Lot  2. 

Lot  3. 

Period 

Cotton- 
seed meal. 

Cotton- 
seed hulls. 

Com 

silage. 

Cotton- 
seed meal. 

Cotton- 
seed hulla 

Johnaon- 
Brass 
nay. 

Cotton- 
seed meal. 

Cotton- 
seed hulls. 

First  28  days — 
Second  28  days.. 
Third  28  days... 

Pounds. 
4.64 
6.00 
7.73 

Pounds. 
14.88 
15.27 
24.79 

Pounds. 
22.  S7 
19.49 

(') 

Pounds. 
4.64 
6.00 
7.73 

Pounds. 
13.58 
15.11 
14  21 

Pounds. 
9.43 
8.87 
7.03 

Pounds. 
4.64 
6.00 
7.73 

Pounds. 
26.53 
29.43 
23.96 

>  No  silage  led  during  this  p^od. 


WINTER  FATTENING   OF   STEERS.  13 

During  the  first  28  days  each  steer  received  an  average  of  only  4.64 
pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  each  day.  The  cattle  feeder  would  not, 
as  a  rule,  expect  to  secure  good  gains  when  the  daily  allowance  of 
cottonseed  meal  was  only  4.64  pounds,  but  the  data  show  that  these 
animals  made  excellent  gains  during  the  first  28  days.  During  the 
first  period  each  steer  in  lot  1  (the  silage-fed  lot)  received  14.88 
pounds  of  cottonseed  hulls  and  22.57  pounds  of  corn  silage  each  day 
along  with  the  4,64  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal.  The  cottonseed  meal 
was  sprinkled  over  the  hulls  and  silage  and  thoroughly  mixed  by 
hand.  During  the  first  period  of  28  days  each  steer  in  lot  3  (the  lot 
to  which  nothing  was  fed  except  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls)  ate  26.53 
pounds  of  cottonseed  hulls  along  with  the  4.64  pounds  of  meal.  At 
the  end  of  the  test,  when  the  cottonseed  meal  was  increased  to  7.73 
pounds  daily  for  each  steer,  as  many  pounds  of  hulls  were  not  con- 
sumed as  at  the  beginning,  so  the  daily  allowance  was  cut  down  to 
23.96  pounds  for  each  steer.  In  lot  2  (the  lot  in  which  Johnson-grass 
hay  was  used  to  supplement  the  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls)  each 
steer,  during  the  first  period,  ate  13.58  pounds  of  hulls  and  9.43 
pounds  of  the  hay  each  day  along  with  the  4.64  pounds  of  cottonseed 
meal.  They  were  given  as  much  hay  each  day  as  they  would  clean  up. 
The  hay  was  fed  in  racks,  and  none  of  it  was  trampled  under  foot  and 
wasted. 

During  the  second  period  of  28  days  each  steer  ate  an  average  of  6 
pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  each  day.  With  the  exception  of  a  small 
increase  the  roughage  part  of  each  ration  was  maintained  practically 
as  it  was  in  the  first  period.  Each  steer  in  lot  3  ate  practically  30 
pounds  of  cottonseed  hulls  each  day.  The  average  cattle  of  the 
South,  which  are  not  as  large  as  the  ones  used  in  this  test,  will  not 
consume  30  pounds  of  hulls  per  steer  per  day.  In  some  former  beef- 
feeding  work  done  by  this  Bureau  and  the  Alabama  Experiment 
Station^  steers  which  averaged  816  pounds  in  weight  at  the  close  of 
the  test  ate  only  19.9  pounds  of  cottonseed  hulls  daily. 

Unfortunately  for  the  test  and  the  cattle,  the  supply  of  silage 
lasted  only  56  days,  so  no  silage  was  fed  the  steers  in  lot  1  during  the 
last  period  of  28  days.  Cottonseed  hulls  replaced  the  silage.  During 
the  last  period  each  steer  ate  7.73  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  daily. 
They  would  have  eaten  a  larger  amount  if  it  had  been  placed  before 
them.  The  roughage  part  of  the  ration  was  decreased  as  the  amount 
of  cottonseed  meal  was  increased.  The  steers  themselves  regulated  the 
amount  of  roughage,  as  they  were  given  only  as  much  as  they  would 
clean  up  at  each  meal. 

The  above  table  should  be  closely  studied  by  the  cattle  feeder. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  average  southern  fanner  feeds  too  much 

>  See  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  103. 


14 


FEEDING  BEEP  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


cottonseed  meal  to  his  fattening  cattle.  When  the  allowance  of  meal 
is  kept  down  to  a  reasonable  amount,  the  cattle  will  feel  better  and 
make  gains  more  economically  than  when  9  to  10  pounds  are  fed  to 
each  steer  daily.  At  the  same  time  the  owner  will  not  be  forced  to 
sell  at  unfavorable  times  because  of  scours  and  sickness. 

DAILY  AND  TOTAL  GAINS. 

The  gains  as  given  here  are  not  fictitious  in  any  sense.  No  "fill" 
is.induded,  as  the  cattle  had  been  on  feed  for  24  days  before  the  test 
began.  The  gains  would  have  been  considerably  larger  if  the  "fill" 
had  been  included. 

Table  2. — Average  weights  and  gains. 
[Dec,  1, 1909,  to  Feb.  23, 1910,  84  days.] 


Lot. 


Nmnber 
of  steers. 


20 


Ration. 


Cotton.seed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  corn  silage 
Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  Johnson- 
grass  hay 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls! ........... 


Average 

initial 

weight  of 

each  steer. 


Average 

final 
weight  of 
each  steer. 


Pounds. 
811 


820 
851 


Pounds. 
9C2 


949 
995 


Average 

total  gain 

of  each 

steer. 


Pounds. 
151 


129 
144 


Average 

daily  gain 

of  each 

steer. 


Pounds. 
1.80 


1.54 
1.71 


RESULTS  FOR  FIRST  56  DAYS-WHILE  SILAGE  WAS  FED. 


20 


Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  corn  silage 
Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  Johnson- 

gra.ss  hay 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls !!]!.!!!!!] 


All  of  the  cattle  made  satisfactory  but  not  unusual  gains.  In  the 
first  part  of  Table  2  it  is  seen  that  the  silage-fed  steers  (lot  1)  made 
the  largest  gains,  making  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.8  pounds  per 
steer  for  the  whole  period  of  84  days.  In  the  lower  part  of  Table  2 
are  found  the  results  of  the  first  56  days  of  the  test,  or  the  period 
when  com  silage  was  fed  to  the  cattle  in  lot  1 .  When  the  second  part 
of  the  table  is  studied,  it  is  seen  that  the  cattle  which  ate  silage  did 
not  make  as  large  daily  gains  as  did  those  which  were  fed  nothing  but 
cottonseed  meal  and  hulls.  During  the  first  56  days  each  steer  in 
lot  1  (the  silage  lot)  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.86  pounds,  while 
during  the  same  period  each  steer  in  lot  3  (cottonseed  meal  and  hulls 
only)  gained  1.89  pounds  each  day.  However,  the  reader  should  not 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  daily  gains  measure  the  success  of  a 
feeding  operation  altogether.  It  is,  of  course,  necessary  for  good 
gains  to  be  secured,  but  the  final  profits  are  not  determined  entirely 
by  the  daily  gains.  Other  factors,  such  as  the  price  of  the  feeds  and 
the  selUng  price  of  the  cattle,  must  be  taken  into  consideration. 


WINTER  PATTiENING  OP   STEERS.  IS 

The  cattle  which  were  fed  a  partial  ration  of  Johnson-grass  hay 
made  the  least  satisfactory  gains,  making  a  daily  gain  per  steer  of 
only  1.54  pounds  during  the  whole  period  of  84  days.  As  far  as  gains 
were  concerned,  the  Johnson-grass  hay  proved  to  be  unsatisfactory,  as 
cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  produced  greater  gains  when  fed  alone 
than  when  the  two  were  combined  with  Johnson-grass  hay.  The 
hay  was  of  good  quality  and  the  cattle  ate  it  with  considerable  relish. 
Oftentimes  Johnson  grass  is  cut  at  such  a  late  stage  of  maturity  that 
it  is  stiff,  woody,  and  unpalatable,  but  the  hay  used  in  this  test  was  cut 
and  harvested  at  the  proper  stage. 

The  supply  of  silage  was  exhausted  at  the  end  of  56  days,  so  this 
lot  of  cattle  (lot  1)  was  continued  to  the  end  of  the  tost  on  cottonseed 
meal  and  hulls,  the  hull  part  of  the  ration  being  increased  sufficiently 
to  take  the  place  of  the  silage.  After  the  feeding  of  silage  was 
discontinued  the  cattle  still  continued  to  make  good  gains,  as  each 
steer  made  a  gain  of  47  pounds  during  the  last  28  days  of  the  test. 
During  this  same  period  each  steer  which  was  eating  Johnson-grass 
hay  (lot  2)  made  a  gain  of  49  pounds,  while  each  steer  in  lot  3  gained 
only  38  pounds.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  expected  that  but 
small  gains  would  be  secured  after  the  discontinuance  of  the  silage, 
but  the  change  was  made  gradually  and  the  steers  did  not  seem  to 
notice  the  substitution  of  hulls  for  the  silage.  Cottonseed  meal  and 
hulls  make  an  extremely  palatable  combination  of  feeds;  in  fact, 
it  is  difficult  to  find  a  combination  of  feeds  more  palatable  than  a 
mixture  of  these  two  southern  feeds. 

At  the  end  of  the  experiment  the  steers  in  lots  1,  2,  and  3  averaged 
962,  949,  and  995  pounds,  respectively,  in  weight;  they  made  average 
total  gains  per  steer  of  151,  129,  and  144  pounds  in  the  respective 
lots. 

QUANTITY  AND  COST  OF  FEED  REQUIRED  TO  MAKE  loo  POUNDS 

GAIN. 

In  work  of  this  character  the  real  value  of  a  feed,  or  a  combination 
of  feeds,  is  measured  by  the  number  of  pounds  of  feed  required  to 
make  100  pounds  of  gain  in  live  weight.  With  this  information  the 
farmer  can  apply  the  knowledge  to  his  own  conditions  and  quickly 
determine  what  it  would  cost  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain  on  his  own 
farm.  The  table  following  shows  the  quantity  of  feed  required 
to  make  100  pounds  of  increase  in  live  weight  and  the  cost  of  the 
gains  under  the  conditions  of  this  test.  The  price  placed  upon  the 
feeds  was  their  actual  cost  laid  down  on  the  farm.  The  silage,  of 
course,  was  made  on  the  farm,  and  on  it  was  placed  an  estimated 
value  of  $2.50  a  ton. 


16 


FEEDING  BEEP  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


Table  3. — Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain. 
[Deo.  1, 1900,  to  Feb.  23, 1910,  84  days.] 


Lot. 


Ration. 


Feed  to 
make  100 
pounds 
.of  gain. 


Cost  of  feed 
to  make 

lOOpounds 
of^gain. 


[Cottonseed  meal 

^Cottonseed  hulls 

[Com  silage 

{Cottonseed  meal 
Cottonseed  hulls 
Johnson-Rrass  hay 

fCottonseed  meal 

\Cottonseed  hulls 

Results  for  first  56  days — while  silage  was  fed. 

! Cottonseed  meal 
Cottonseed  hulls 
Com  silage 
Cottonseed  meal 
Cottonseed  hulls 
Johnson-grass  hay 

/Cottonseed  meal 

ICottonseed  hulls 


Pounds. 
341 

1,020 
781 
399 
931 
550 
357 

1,564 


$8.98 

11.47 
10.08 


287 
812 

1,132 
372 

1,004 
641 
280 

1,475 


$7.98 

11.88 
8.80 


When  feeds  are  valued  as  previously  stated  it  is  seen  that  the 
silage-fed  steers  (lot  1)  made  the  cheapest  gains  in  both  cases.  When 
the  whole  period  of  84  days  is  taken  into  consideration  each  100 
pounds  of  increase  in  hve  weight  cost  $8.98  when  the  silage  was 
used,  $11.47  when  Johnson-grass  hay  supplemented  the  cottonseed 
meal  and  hulls  Got  2),  and  $10.08  when  nothing  was  fed  except 
cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  (lot  3).  Johnson-grass  hay  proved  to  be 
the  most  expensive  and  unsatisfactory  feed  used.  During  the  first 
56  days,  when  silage  was  being  fed,  each  100  pounds  of  gain  in 
lot  1  cost  $7.98;  the  same  gain  cost  $11.88  in  lot  2  where  Johnson- 
grass  hay  was  used  in  place  of  silage,  and  $8.80  in  lot  3  where  cotton- 
seed meal  and  hulls  were  fed  alone.  As  far  as  economical  gains  were 
concerned  the  silage  proved  to  be  a  valuable  addition  to  the  cotton- 
seed meal  and  hulls,  but  money  was  lost  when  Johnson-grass  hay 
replaced  part  of  the  cottonseed  hulls,  each  100  pounds  of  increase  in 
weight  costing  just  $3.08  more  when  the  hay  was  fed  than  when 
cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  were  fed  alone. 

By  studying  the  second  part  of  Table  3,  it  is  seen  (lot  1)  that  287 
pounds  of  cottonseed  meal,  812  pounds  of  hulls,  and  1,132  pounds  of 
silage  produced  100  pounds  of  increase  in  weight.  When  the  meal 
and  hulls  were  fed  alone  (lot  3)  it  is  further  seen  that  280  pounds  of 
meal  plus  1,475  pounds  of  hulls  produced  the  same  number  of  pounds 
of  increase  in  weight;  therefore  1,132  pounds  of  silage  saved  663 
pounds  of  hulls,  but  at  the  same  time  caused  the  loss  of  7  pounds  of 
cottonseed  meal;  or,  1  ton  of  the  silage  actually  saved  $3.94  worth 
of  hulls  and  cottonseed  meal  when  huUs  and  meal  were  valued  at 


WINTER  FATTENING   OP   STEEBS. 


17 


$7  and  $26  a  ton,  respectively.  Com  silage  in  this  test  was  therefore 
worth  S3.94  a  ton.  In  the  same  way  it  is  found  that  641  pounds  of 
Johnson-grass  hay  took  the  place  of  471  pounds  of  hulls,  but  caused 
the  loss  of  92  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal ;  or,  1  ton  of  hay  proved  to 
have  a  feeding  value  of  only  $1.31  when  the  meal  and  the  hulls  were 
valued  as  above.  Johnson-grass  hay  in  this  test  was  therefore  worth 
$1.31  a  ton,  whereas  it  cost  $11  a  ton.  Ton  for  ton,  silage  was  just 
three  times  as  valuable  as  Johnson-grass  hay  when  they  were  both 
used  along  with  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  for  fattening  cattle. 
Johnson-grass  hay  proved  to  be  a  poor  feed  for  fattening  purposes, 
while  silage  had  an  exceedingly  high  value  when  used  for  the  same 
purpose.  The  cattle  feeder  can  not,  therefore,  afford  to  use  Johnson- 
grass  hay  along  with  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  for  fattening  pur- 
poses, and  this  experiment  tends  to  show  that  the  majority  of  southern 
feeders  can  not  use  a  more  economical  feed  than  silage  for  this  purpose. 

ADVANTAGES  OF  USING  PURCHASED  FEEDS. 

The  majority  of  our  southern  farmers  object  to  buying  cottonseed 
meal,  hulls,  and  other  feeds  for  beef  cattle  on  the  ground  that  the 
original  prices  of  the  feeds  can  not  be  realized  after  being  fed  to  cattle. 
At  the  same  time  thousands  of  these  same  farmers  buy  cottonseed 
meal  and  use  it  as  a  commercial  fertiUzer,  when  experience  and  experi- 
ments all  teach  that  the  first  use  of  the  meal  should  be  as  a  feed  for 
some  kind  of  live  stock  and  the  second  use  as  a  fertilizer  in  the  form 
of  barnyard  manure.  When  the  cottonseed  meal  is  fed  to  live  stock 
it  is  used  twice,  once  as  a  feed  and  again  as  a  fertihzer.  Many  of 
our  best  farmers  feed  cattle  for  no  other  reason  than  to  obtain  the 
barnyard  manure,  and  are  satisfied  if  they  come  out  even  on  the 
cattle;  the  manure  is  well  worth  the  expense  of  feeding. 

In  these  experiments  the  cottonseed  meal  cost  $26  a  ton  and  the 
hulls  $7  a  ton,  and  we  are  satisfied  that  in  every  case  these  feeds 
reahzed,  as  a  result  of  feeding  to  the  cattle,  much  more  than  they 
cost;  that  is,  an  actual  profit  was  made  on  each  ton  of  the  feeds  and  at 
the  same  time  the  manure  was  left  on  the  farm.  The  meal  and  hulls, 
therefore,  were  no  expense  at  all  to  the  soil  or  to  the  succeeding  crops. 

VALUE  OF  BARNYARD  MANURE. 

The  farmer  who  has  lands  which  should  be  built  up  should  feel 
'  that  ho  has  fed  cattle  at  a  profit  when  manure  is  obtained  free  above 
all  other  expenses,  as  this  manure  has  an  exceedingly  high  fertilizing 
value.  Beef  cattle  should  be  more  generally  introduced  because 
of  the  good  they  do  in  building  up  and  maintainmg  soils.  Under 
the  present  system  of  cotton  farming  the  soils  are  becoming  poorer 
and  poorer.  ,  With  the  introduction  of  cattle  the  soil  will  begm  to  be 
54012°— Bull.  159—12 3  » 


18  FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

built  up.  Director  Thomo,  of  the  Ohio  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station,  has  been  makijig  tests  with  barnyard  manure  for  several 
years,  applying  the  manure  upon  a  plot  of  ground  upon  which  was 
nmning  a  three  years'  rotation  of  com,  wheat,  and  clover.  Eight 
tons  of  manure  an  acre  were  apphed.  The  average  yearly  increase 
an  acre,  following  the  one  appHcation,  was  as  follows: 

Corn,  14.7  bushels,  at  70  oenis  a  bushel $10  29 

Com  stover,  744  pounds,  at  $6  a  ton [ 2  23 

Wheat,  8.36  bushels,  at  $1  a  bushel V^.. ...... ...  8  36 

Wheat  straw,  897  pounds,  at  $4  a  ton [         j'  yo 

Clover  hay,  686  pounds,  at  $12  a  ton '       ^'  jg 

Total  value  of  8  tons  of  manure 26  79 

Total  value  of  1  ton  of  manure o  oc 

He  further  states  (Bulletin  183,  Ohio  Experiment  Station)  that  the 
vaJue  of  farm  manure  can  be  materially  increased  by  balancing  the 
manure  with  the  addition  of  a  carrier  of  phosphorus.  The  farm 
manures  are  too  high  in  nitrogen  as  compared  with  the  other  elements. 
By  balancing  stable  manure,  the  value  of  8  tons  was  increased 
$12.20  after  deductmg  the  cost  of  the  material  used  for  the  balancing 
of  the  manure.  This  is  $1.53  a  ton,  and  when  added  to  the  $3.35 
above,  brings  the  total  possible  value  of  each  ton  of  manure  up  to 
$4.88.  During  a  feeding  period  o'f  100  days  each  steer  will  produce 
at  least  U  tons  of  manure.  This  profit  should  be  added  to  the 
feeding  or  direct  profits. 

The  Arkansas  Station  (Bulletin  68)  made  a  test  to  determine  the 
value  to  each  succeeding  crop  of  growing  peas  in  the  corn,  gathering 
the  com,  and  then  grazing  both  the  peas  and  the  stalks  by  the  steers. 
The  steers  were  fed  some  cottonseed  in  addition  to  the  grazing.  As 
the  result  of  this  crop  of  peas  and  the  grazing,  the  succeeding  cotton 
crop  was  increased  626.5  pounds  of  seed  cotton  over  the  area  where 
com  alone  had  been  grown.  A  third  lot  was  planted  to  com,  and  the 
increase  in  com,  due  to  the  pea  crop  and  the  grazing,  was  14  bushels 
an  acre. 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  financial  statements  in  this  bulletin 
are  based  on  the  local  conditions  where  the  feeding  was  carried  on. 
Should  the  conditions  elsewhere  be  different,  the  results  will  also  differ! 
The  price  of  the  cattle  when  put  into  the  feed  lot  is  one  very  variable 
factor.  The  feeders  in  this  particular  experiment  cost  3i  cents  a 
pound.  In  another  part  of  the  State  they  might  have  cost  more 
than  they  did  in  Sumter  County,  and  in  still  a  third  part  they  might 
have  cost  considerably  less.  The  financial  statement  will  not  be 
misleading  if  the  reader  bears  in  mind  that  it  does  not  apply  to  all 
conditions. 


WINTER  FATTENING   OF   STEERS.  19 

The  cattle,  as  previously  noted,  were  bought  in  Sumter  and  neigh- 
boring counties  for  3i  cents  a  pound  during  the  fall  of  1909.  They 
were  fed  on  cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls  for  24  days  before 
the  test  began.  The  test  continued  for  84  days,  when  the  cattle 
were  ready  for  sale  and  were  shipped  to  the  Louisville  (Ky.)  market, 
where  all  of  the  steers  sold  for  $5.75  a  hundredweight.  It  cost  65 
cents  a  hundredweight  to  ship  them  to  the  market,  so  they  are 
estunatcd  in  the  financial  statement  at  $5.10  a  hundredweight.  The 
$5.10  represents  the  price  actually  received  on  the  farm. 
Lot  1.  Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  com  silage: 

By  sale  of  20  steers,  18,658  pounds,  at  $5.10  per  hundredweight $951.  66 

To  20  steers,  16,220  pounds,  at  3^  cents  a  pound $527. 15 

To  10, 290  pounds  cottonseed  meal,  at  $26  a  ton 133.  77 

To  30,768  pounds  cottonseed  hulls,  at  $7  a  ton 107.  69 

To  23,554  pounds  corn  silage,  at  $2.50  a  ton 29.44 

Total  expense '^^^^  ^^ 

Total  profit 1^3.  61 

Profit  per  steer "^-^ 

Lot  2.  Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  Johnson-grass  hay: 

By  sale  of  20  steers,  18,411  pounds,  at  $5.10  per  hundredweight 938.  96 

To  20  steers,  16,400  poimds,  at  H  cents  a  pound $533.  00 

To  10,290  pounds  cottonseed  meal,  at  $26  a  ton 133.  77 

To  24 ,026  pounds  cottonseed  hulls,  at  $7  a  ton 84.  09 

To  14,185  pounds  Johnson-grass  hay,  at  $11  a  ton 78.  02 

Total  expense - ^^^- ^ 

Total  profit 110.08 

Profit  per  steer ^- ^ 

Lot  3.  Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls: 

By  sale  of  20  steers,  19,303  pounds,  at  $5.10  per  hundredweight 984. 45 

To  20  steers,  17,020  pounds,  at  3}  cents  a  pound $552. 15 

To  10,290  pounds  cottonseed  meal,  at  $26  a  ton 133.  77 

To  44,755  pounds  cottonseed  hulls,  at  $7  a  ton 159.  09 

Total  expense ^^-  Q^ 

Total  profit : 139.44 

Profit  per  steer ^-^^ 

The  foregoing  financial  statement  shows  that  all  of  the  lots  of 
steers  were  fed  at  a  profit.  The  outcome  was  satisfactory.  The 
greatest  profit  was  made  in  lot  1 ,  where  silage  was  used.  The  smallest 
profit  was  made  in  lot  2,  where  the  Johnson-grass  hay  was  fed.  ^  The 
cattle  in  lots  1  and  3  sold  at  the  same  price  and  made  practically 
the  same  total  gains  in  live  weight,  but  those  in  lot  1  had  the  advan- 
tage in  that  they  had  a  cheap  feed — silage — added  to  the  basal  ration 
of  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls.  Each  steer  in  lot  1  made  a  clear 
profit  of  $7.68,  while  each  one  in  lot  3  made  a  profit  of  only  $6.97. 
The  steers  which  received  Johnson-grass  hay  along  with  the  cotton- 
seed meal  and  hulls  (lot  2)  made  a  profit  of  only  $5.50  each. 


20 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 
SLAUGHTER  DATA. 


Table  5  shows  the  total  weight  of  each  lot  of  cattle  after  allowing 
3  per  cent  for  shrinkage,  the  live  weight  at  the  Louisville  market  the 
number  of  pounds  each  steer  lost  in  shipment,  the  dressed  weight  at 
Louisville,  and  the  per  cent  of  dressed  weight  to  live  weight  The 
steers  were  driven  4  miles  to  a  raUroad,  and,  on  account  of  delays 
were  in  the  cai-s  48  hours.  ' 

Ta  hlb  b.— Shipping  weighh  and  slaughter  record  \ 


Lot. 


Number 

of 
steers. 


Total 
weight 
on  farm. 


Pounds. 
19.23.5 
18,980 
19,900 


Total 
weight  at 
LouisTllle. 


Pound*. 
17,685 
17,615 
18,325 


Average 
shrinkage 
per  steer. 


Pounds. 

77.5 
68.3 
78.8 


Total 

dressed 

weight  at 

Louisville. 


Pounds. 
9,926 
9,736 
10.164 


Average 

percent 

dressed 

out  by  farm 

weigh  ta. 


51.6 
61.3 
51.1 


Average  per 
cent  dressed 

out  by 

market 
weights. 


56.1 
55.3 
55.5 


The  shrinkage  on  the  road  was  rather  great,  but  it  should  be 
remembered  that  there  was  a  delay  of  several  hours  in  shipment. 
Those  cattle  which  were  fed  Johnson-grass  hay  Got  2)  lost  the  fewest 
pounds  m  weight.  Each  steer  lost  77.5,  68.3,  and  78.8  pounds  in 
lots  1,  2,  and  3,  respectively;  or,  the  silage-fed  steers  Got  1)  lost  in 
transit  8.1  per  cent  of  their  weight,  those  in  lot  2  (Johnson-grass  lot) 
lost  7.1  per  cent,  while  those  in  lot  3  (cottonseed  meal  and  hulls) 
shrunk  7.9  per  cent. 

The  steers  in  lot  1  (the  silage-fed  cattle)  dressed  out  higher  than  the 
steers  in  lots  2  and  3,  dressing  56.1  per  cent  by  the  market  weights 
The  steers  m  lots  2  and  3  dressed,  respectively,  55.3  per  cent  and  55  5 
per  cent. 

SUMMARY. 
Table  6. — Summary  of  remits. 


Item. 


Average  weight  of  steers  at  beginning,  Dec.  1, 1909 

Average  weight  of  steers  at  close.  Feb.  23, 1910 .  

Average  total  gain  of  each  steer  for  whole  period  of  84  davs 

Average  daily  gain  of  each  steer  for  whole  period  of  84  days 

A^^^  ^^P  gain  of  each  steerfor  first  56  days  while  silage  was  fed' 
Average  cottonseed  meal  fed  daily  per  steer  ^as"  "»»'«!. 

Average  cottonseed  hulls  fed  daily  per  steer    

Averagesilagc  fed  dnilv  per  steer.  

Average  Johnson-grass'hav  fed  daiiv  per  steer ' 

r^fJ^fS^  ^o"', l**  ™*H^  ^°"  P"""*^''"  eain  for  whole  peri<;dof84  days: '. 
Cottonseed  meal  to  make  100  pounds  gain  for  first  56  days 

Roughage  to  make  100  pounds  gain  for  whole  period  of  84  days. . . ." 

Rm^hage  to  make  100  pounds  gain  for  first  56  days  whUe  silage  was 


Lot  1.— 
Feed:  Cot- 
tonseed 
meal,  cot- 
tonseed 
hulls,  com 


Pounds. 
811 
962 
151 
1.8 
1.86 
6.1 
15.1 
21 


Lot2.— 
Feed:  Cot- 
tonseed 
meal,  cot- 
tonseed 
hulls,  John- 
son-grass 
hay. 


Cost  to  make  100  pounds  gain  for  whole  period  of  84  days 
Cost  to  make  100  pounds  gain  for  first  56  Ws  ' 

t  ost  of  steers  per  hundredweight  in  fall  ' 

Selling  price  of  steers  in  Louisville,...        

Belhng  price  of  steers  on  farm 

Proflt  per  steer 


341 

287 
'781 
«  1,020 
*812 
>1, 132 
Dollars. 
8.98 
7.98 
3.25 
5.75 
6.10 
7.68 


Pounds. 
820 
949 
129 
1.64 
1.43 
6.1 
14.3 


Lot3.— 
Feed:  Cot- 
tonseed 
meal,  cot- 
tonseed 
hulls. 


8.40 
399 
372 
S931 
»550 
^1,004 
«64l 
Dollars. 
11.47 
11.88 
3.25 
5.75 
5.10 
5.50 


Pounds. 
851 
995 
144 
L71 
1.89 
6.1 
26.6 


357 

280 

«  1,554 

*  1,475 
Dollars. 


10.08 
8.80 
3.26 
5.75 
5.10 
6.97 


>  Silage. 


»  Hulls. 


Hay. 


WINTER  FATTENING   OF  STEERS.  21 

1.  The  steers  wliicli  were  used  in  this  test  were  from  2  to  3  years 
old.  They  had  all  been  graded  up  by  the  use  of  Aberdeen-Angus 
Hereford,  and  Shorthorn  sires. 

2.  At  tlie  beginning  of  the  test  they  averaged  827  pounds  in  weight. 
They  were  fed  84  days,  and  at  the  close  of  the  test  they  averaged  967 

pounds. 

3.  The  60  head  of  steers  were  divided  into  three  lots  and  fed  as 

follows : 

Lot  1:  Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  corn  silage.  Lot  2: 
Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  Johnson-grass  hay.  Lot  3:  Cot- 
tonseed meal,  cottonseed  hulls. 

4.  For  the  whole  period  of  84  days  average  daily  gains  of  1.8,  1.54, 
and  1.71  pounds  were  secured  in  lots  1,  2,  and  3,  respectively. 

5.  During  the  first  56  days,  when  silage  was  fed  in  lot  1,  average 
daily  gains  of  1.86,  1.43,  and  1.89  pounds  were  secured  in  lots  1,  2, 
and  3,  respectively. 

6.  For  the  whole  period  of  84  days  it  cost  $8.98,  $11.47,  and  $10.08 
to  make  100  pounds  of  gain  in  lots  1,  2,  and  3,  respectively. 

7.  For  the  first  56  days,  when  silage  was  fed  in  lot  1,  it  cost,  respec- 
tively, $7.98,  $11.88,  and  $8.80  to  make  100  pounds  of  gam  in  lots  1, 
2,  and  3. 

8.  In  the  fall  of  1909  the  steers  cost  $3.25  per  hundredweight.  At 
the  end  of  the  test  they  were  sliipped  to  Louisville  and  sold  for  $5.75 
per  hundredweight. 

9.  Each  steer  in  lots  1,  2,  and  3  netted  a  clear  profit  of  $7.68,  $5.50, 
and  $6.97,  respectively. 

10.  Corn  silage  proved  to  be  an  exceedingly  satisfactory  addition 
to  a  basal  ration  of  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls,  but  Johnson-grass 
hay  was  an  exceedingly  unsatisfactory  supplement  when  used  in  the 
same  way. 


II.  WINTERING  STEERS  FOLLOWED  BY  SUMMER  FATTEN- 
ING ON  PASTURE. 


INTRODUCTION. 


For  several  years  tliis  bureau,  cooperating  with  the  Alabama 
Experiment  Station,  has  been  studying  the  subject  of  wiatering 
mature  steers  and  subsequently  fattening  them  in  the  summer  on 
pasture.  Some  of  the  work  has  been  pubUshed,^  but  the  conditions 
surrounding  the  work  herein  pubhshed  were  altogether  different  from 
those  of  the  previous  work.  In  the  first  place,  these  cattle  were  of 
different  age  and  quality  from  the  ones  used  in  the  former  experi- 
mental work.  In  the  second  place,  the  grass  upon  which  these  cattle 
grazed  grew  on  a  sandy  instead  of  a  lime  soil.  In  the  previous  work 
the  cattle  were  grazed  upon  lime  soils  with  sweet  clover  (MeHlotus) 
as  the  basal  pasture  crop  during  the  early  part  of  the  grazing  season. 
In  the  work  pubhshed  in  tliis  bulletin  no  sweet-clover  pastures  were 
available,  as  sweet  clover  does  not  occur  upon  the  sandy  soils  of  this 
region. 

Two  separate  experiments  are  reported  in  this  part  of  the  bulletin, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  two  distinct  types  of  cattle  were  used.  The 
animals  were  divided  into  four  lots,  two  of  them  composed  of  high- 
grade  young  cattle  and  the  other  two  of  common  or  scrub  cattle 
fully  a  year  older.  The  work  was  done  m  cooperation  with  Mr.  F.  I. 
Derby,  of  Sumter  County,  Ala.,  he  fumislung  the  cattle  and  the  feed 
and  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  and  the  Alabama  Experiment 
Station  providing  a  trained  man  to  carry  on  the  experiment.  Mr. 
J.  W.  Ridgway  was  located  on  the  farm  and  had  personal  supervision 
of  all  of  the  experimental  work. 

OBJECT  OF  THE  WORK. 

This  work  was  outlined  with  the  following  objects  in  view: 

1.  To  study  the  problem  of  feedmg  steers  during  the  wmter  months 
with  a  view  to  fattening  them  on  pasture  the  followmg  summer. 

2.  To  determine  the  profits,  if  any,  in  supplementing  sandy-soil 
pastures  with  cottonseed  cake  during  the  summer  fattening  process. 

3.  To  study  a  common  southern  method  of  managing  and  fattening 
common  or  scrub  cattle. 

>  See  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  131. 
22 


SUMMER  FATTENING  ON  PASTURE.  23 

Steers  can  be  purchased  cheaper  during  the  fall  of  the  year  than  at 
any  other  time,  so  many  feeders  prefer  to  buy  in  the  fall.  Wlien  cheap 
steers  are  so  purchased,  a  common  practice  in  the  South  is  to  "rough" 
them  through  the  winter  months  as  cheaply  as  possible,  turn  them  on 
pasture  the  following  summer,  and  sell  tliom  to  the  butcher  at  the 
end  of  the  pasture  season. 

THE  CATTLE. 

The  cattle  were  all  bought  in  Sumter  and  neighboring  counties,  but 
those  selected  for  lots  4  and  5  were  an  excellent  grade  of  animals,  all 
havmg  Shorthorn  or  Aberdeen-Angus  blood,  wliile  those  placed  in 
lots  X  and  Y  represented  no  particular  breeding;  they  were,  in  fact, 
scrubs,  or  the  common  cattle  of  the  neighborhood.  The  steers  in 
lots  4  and  5  were  from  20  to  24  months  old  when  purchased,  in  the  fall 
of  1909,  and  had  attained  an  average  weight  of  616  pounds.  The 
steers  of  lots  X  and  Y  were  from  3  to  4  years  old  and  weighed  only 
565  pounds  each  when  the  tests  began,  December  6,  1909.  The 
cattle,  both  young  and  old,  were  dehorned  as  soon  as  they  were 
brought  to  the  farm. 

The  reader's  attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  while  the 
results  secured  in  lots  4  and  5  are  comparable  with  each  other,  they 
are  not  in  any  way  comparable  with  the  results  secured  in  lots  X 
and  Y.  These  are  two  separate  experiments  and  are  not  comparable 
in  any  way.  „  * 

•^         "^  THE  PASTURES. 

The  soil  upon  which  these  steers  grazed  was  of  a  sandy  and  sandy- 
loam  character,  such  as  is  found  in  a  cut-over  pine  district.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  pastures  were  low,  so  that  in  rainy  weather  they 
became  exceedmgly  wet.  There  was  some  sandy  ridge  land,  however, 
in  each  pasture. 

Carpet  grass,  lespedeza,  broom  sedge,  and  a  small  amount  of  Ber- 
muda and  Paspalum  dUatatum  constituted  the  plants  that  formed  the 
pastures.  Sweet  clover  (Melilotus),  as  before  stated,  does  not  grow 
in  this  region.  They  afforded  an  abundance  of  grass  throughout  the 
grazing  season,  but  the  growth  was  rank  and  very  watery,  as  the  fre- 
quent rains  kept  the  pasture  exceedingly  wet  during  the  whole  test. 
No  expense  or  time  had  ever  been  expended  on  these  pastures  except 
to  build  a  wire  fence  around  them.  The  plants  mentioned  above  had 
•  come  voluntarily  after  the  pine  woods  were  cleared  away. 

THE  WINTER  RANGE. 

The  steers  of  lots  X  and  Y,  after  being  dehorned  and  tagged,  were 
turned  out,  December  6,  1909,  in  a  tract  of  cut-over  pine  lands. 
Approximately  20,000  acres  of  land  were  in  this  tract,  but  it  was  not 
fenced,  so  the  steers  had  the  privilege  of  going  practically  anywhere 


24 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


m  the  southern  part  of  Sumter  County.  Tliis  land  had  grown  up 
during  the  previous  summer  with  broom  sedge,  lespedeza,  and  other 
native  grasses  Wlien  frost  came  the  grasses  were,  of  course,  all 
killed,  but  still  they  afforded  some  grazmg  for  the  steers  during  the 
first  part  of  the  wmter.  During  the  latter  part  of  the  winter  when' 
grazing  is  usually  short,  no  little  amount  of  Augusta  vetch  came  up 
and  furmshed  good  grazing  during  the  early  spring  months.  Tliis 
plant,  more  than  anytlung  else,  perhaps,  kept  the  steers  from  losing 
weight  while  on  the  range,  as  it  gave  good  grazing  in  March  and  April 
1  he  steers  evidently  gained  in  weight  during  these  two  months.  The 
steers  were  not  taken  off  tliis  range  until  April  23,  1910. 

The  young  steers  of  lots  4  and  5  were  not  turned  on  the  range. 

PLAN  OF  THE  FEEDING. 

In  order  to  give  a  clear  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  work,  the  general 
plan  of  the  feeding  is  outlined  below: 

Table  7. —General  plan  of  the  feeding. 
THE  YOUNG  STEERS. 


Lot. 


Number 
of  steers. 


Winter  feeding. 


(Dec.  6, 1909,  to  Mar.  31, 1910.) 

Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls  (one-half 
ration).  *• 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  and  Johnson- 
grass  hay  (one-half  ration). 


Summer  fattening. 


(Apr.  2  to  Aug.  26, 1910.) 
Pasture  and  cottonseed  cake. 
Do. 


THE  COMMON  STEERS. 


(Dec.  6, 1909,  to  Apr.  23, 1910.) 
Range  only 


(Apr.  23  to  Sept.  2, 1910.) 

Pasture  and  cottonseed  cake. 
Pasture  alone. 


The  general  plan  was  to  feed  the  steers  of  lots  4  and  5  sufficient 
feed  to  produce  smaU  gams  throughout  the  winter  months  They 
were  a  good  class  of  cattle  and  young,  so  it  was  thought  that  it  would 
pay  to  feed  them  liberally  during  the  winter  months.  Accordingly 
a  partial  ration  of  cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls  was  fed  to 
the  steers  in  lot  4,  and  those  in  lot  5  had  some  Johnson-grass  hay 
added  to  the  basal  ration  of  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls.  No  effort 
was  made  to  fatten  these  young  cattle  durmg  the  winter;  the  object 
was  to  make  only  smaU  gams  and  keep  them  in  thriving  condition. 
Ihe  fattemng  was  to  occur  the  subsequent  summer,  when  they  were 
on  pasture. 

The  steers  of  lots  X  and  Y  were  turned  out  as  one  lot  on  the  range 
for  the  ynter.  These  cattle  being  of  poor  quahty,  it  was  not  thought 
profitable  to  give  them  high-priced  feeds  during  the  winter  months 


SUMMER   FATTENING   ON   PASTURE.  M 

when  they  were  to  be  fattened  on  pasture  the  following  summer.  As 
stated  before,  the  range  consisted  of  cut-over  pine  lands;  they  had 
the  freedom  of  probably  20,000  acres  of  land. 

The  authors  realize  that  this  method  of  handhng  and  feeding  cattle 
during  the  winter  is  one  that  will  soon  go  out  of  vogue  on  account  of 
the  fact  that  these  large  ranges  will  eventually  be  settled  and  fenced, 
but  at  the  present  time  and  under  present  conditions  many  farmers 
are  so  situated  that  they  can  profitably  make  use  of  these  large  tracts. 
These  cattle  received  no  attention  at  all  throughout  the  winter  months. 
In  fact,  only  a  few  of  them  were  seen  during  the  whole  winter.  The 
following  spring,  March  21,  they  were  brought  up,  weighed  again,  and 
turned  onto  the  summer  pasture  for  the  summer  fattening  work. 
They  were  now  divided  into  two  lots  and  fed  upon  different  feeds. 
The  steers  of  lot  X  were  grazed  upon  a  pasture  and  received  a  small 
feed  of  cottonseed  cake  in  addition  to  the  pasture.  The  steers  of  lot 
Y  were  in  a  similar  pasture  and  received  nothing  in  addition. 

No  shelter  except  the  trees  was  provided  for  the  cattle  in  either  the 
winter  or  summer  time.  They  did  not  seem  to  suffer  from  the  cold 
in  the  winter  or  from  the  heat  in  the  summer.  The  summer  pastures 
were  abundantly  provided  with  good  shade  trees  and  water. 

While  there  were  cattle  ticks  ( Margaro'pus  annulatus)  in  the  pasture, 
yet  the  cattle  were  not  permitted  to  become  badly  infested.  A 
dipping  vat  was  used  to  keep  down  heavy  infestation.  No  cases  of 
Texas  fever  developed. 

The  weight  of  each  steer  was  secured  at  the  beginning  and  the  end 
of  each  test,  and,  with  the  exception  of  lots  X  and  Y  during  the 
winter  of  1909-10,  the  total  weight  of  each  lot  was  noted  every  28 
days.  When  the  steers  were  sold,  they  were  driven  4  mUes  to  the 
shipping  point  at  Whitfield,  Ala. 

CHARACTER  AND  PRICE  OF  THE  FEEDS. 

Local  conditions  determine  to  a  large  extent  the  farm  prices  of 
feeds.  Any  prices  that  might  be  assumed  would  not  meet  all  condi- 
tions, but  the  following  prices  have  been  taken  as  a  basis  upon  which 
to  make  financial  estimates : 


Cottonseed  meal per  ton 


$26.00 


Cottonseed  cake do 26.  00 

Cottonseed  hulls do 7.  00 

Johnson-grass  hay do 11. 00 

Pasture,  per  steer per  month. .  .  50 

All  of  the  feeds  were  of  good  quality.  The  cottonseed  cake,  which 
was  used  in  all  of  the  summer  feeding  work,  had  been  broken  into 
nut  size  by  the  oil  mill  and  sacked.  As  has  been  stated  in  a  previous 
bulletin,  this  cake  can  be  purchased  in  the  large  cake  size,  just  as  it 
comes  from  the  press,  for  about  $2  a  ton  cheaper  than  in  the  nut  size. 

54012°— Bull.  159—12 4 


26 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


Some  feeders  find  that  it  pays  to  break  the  cake  on  their  own  farms. 
The  cake  is  the  same  thing  as  cottonseed  meal,  except  that  it  is' not 
ground  into  a  meal.  There  are  several  advantages  in  feeding  cake 
in  place  of  cottonseed  meal,  especially  in  summer  feeding,  A  rain 
does  not  render  the  cake  unpalatable;  but  it  will  often  put  the  meal 
in  such  a  condition  that  the  cattle  will  not  eat  it.  Again,  no  loss  is 
incurred  with  the  cake  during  windy  days,  whereas  the  meal,  when 
fed  in  the  open  pasture,  is  sometimes  wasted  on  account  of  the  winds. 
Furthermore,  the  cake  requires  chewing  before  being  swallowed,  and 
therefore  must  be  eaten  very  much  more  slowly  than  the  meal,  so 
when  a  number  of  steers  are  being  fed  together  the  greedy  one  has 
little  chance  to  get  enough  cake  to  produce  scours.  In  feeding  cotton- 
seed meal  the  greedy  steer  often  scours  on  account  of  the  fact  that  he 
can  bolt  the  meal  and  get  more  than  his  share;  this  not  only  injures 
the  steer  but  makes  the  bunch  "feed  out"  unevenly. 

THE  WINTER  FEEDING. 
DAILY   RATIONS. 

It  should  again  be  noted  that  the  cattle  were  not  being  fattened 
■during  the  winter  months ;  they  were  simply  being  carried  through  so 
as  to  be  in  condition  for  fattening  on  grass  the  following  summer. 
The  steers  of  lots  4  and  5  were  confined  on  cotton  fields  where  cotton 
had  been  grown  the  previous  summer.  Of  course  they  obtained  some 
feed  from  these  cotton  fields,  especially  during  the  first  part  of  the 
winter,  and  in  addition  were  given  a  half  ration  of  cottonseed  meal, 
hulls,  and  hay,  as  noted  below.  Lots  X  and  Y  were  on  the  open 
range,  with  no  additional  feed.  The  amount  of  feed  given  is  shown 
in  the  following  table: 

^Table  8. —  The  average  daily  amount  of  feed  given  each  steer  during  the  rointer  months. 

THE  YOUNG  STEERS. 
[Dec.  6, 1909,  to  Mar.  31, 1910, 116  days.) 


Lot. 


Number, 
of  steers. 


Ration. 


Average 

daily 
amount. 


/Cottonseed  meal. . 
\Cottonseed  hulls. . 

{Cottonseed  meal.. 
Cottonseed  hulls. . 
Johnson-grass  hay 


Pounds. 
2.35 
13.29 
2.35 
6.82 
5.50 


THE  COMMON  STEERS. 
[Dec.  6, 1909,  to  Apr.  23, 1910, 139  days.) 


43 


Open  range  only. 


None. 


SUMMER   FATTENING  ON   PASTURE. 


27 


It  is  seen  that  none  of  the  steers  was  fed  more  than  a  half  ration  of 
purchased  feeds.  Each  steer  in  lot  4  received  an  average  daily  feed 
of  2.35  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  plus  13.29  pounds  of  hulls.  Each 
steer  in  lot  5  consumed  an  average  of  2.35  pounds  of  cottonseed 
meal,  6.82  pounds  of  cottonseed  hulls,  and  5.5  pounds  of  Johnson- 
grass  hay  daily.  These  were  small  amounts  of  feed,  but,  as  will  be 
seen  later,  the  animals  made  a  fairly  good  daily  gain.  During  the 
whole  winter  each  animal  in  lot  4  ate  273  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal 
and  1,542  pounds  of  hulls  at  a  total  cost  of  $8.95.  During  the  same 
length  of  time  each  steer  in  lot  5  ate  273  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal, 
791  pounds  of  hulls,  and  638  pounds  of  hay,  at  a  cost  of  $9.83. 

The  steers  in  lots  X  and  Y  received  no  feed  at  all  in  addition  to  the 
cut-over  pine  range. 

WEIGHTS    AND    GAINS    DURING    WINTER    MONTHS. 

The  following  table  shows  that  all  of  the  cattle  gained  during 
the  winter  months,  even  the  ones  which  were  turned  out  on  the  open 
range  and  received  no  feed  or  attention  during  the  whole  winter. 
In  this  connection  it  should  be  called  to  mind  that  these  cattle  which 
were  turned  out  on  the  range  were  mature  animals.  They  were 
better  able  than  young  animals  to  care  for  themselves,  as  they  were 
strong  enough  to  get  about  over  large  areas  and  hunt  for  a  Hving. 
These  mature  steers  can  withstand  careless  treatment  and  yet  come 
through  to  spring  in  fairly  good  condition,  while  young  animals,  like 
those  in  lots  4  and  5  might  starve  with  similar  feed  and  treatment. 
No  one  would  advise  a  farmer  to  turn  young  animals  on  an  open 
range  during  the  winter  months  and  give  them  no  feed  or  attention. 
A  young  beef  animal,  if  he  is  to  attain  a  respectable  size,  must  be  fed 
and  cared  for  during  the  cold  months. 

Table  9. — Weights  and  gains  during  the  winter  months. 

THE  YOUNG  STEERS. 

[Dec.  6, 1909,  to  Mar.  31, 1910, 116  days.] 


Lot. 

Number 
of  steers. 

Ration. 

Average 

initial 

weight  of 

each  steer 

(Dec.  6, 

1909). 

Average 

spring 

weight  of 

each  steer 

(Apr.  1, 

1910). 

Average 
total  gain  of 
each  steer. 

Average 
daily  gain  of 
each  steer. 

4 

18 
17 

Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls 
(one-half  ration) 

Pounds. 
624 

608 

Pounds. 
698 

676 

Pounds. 
74 

68 

Pounds. 
0.64 

a 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls, 
Johnson-grass  hay  (one-half  ration) . 

.» 

THE  COMMON  STEERS. 
[Dec.  6,  1909,  to  Apr.  23,  1910,  139  days.] 


43 


Range  alone. 


565 


«575 


.OS 


«  Apr.  23,  19ia 


28 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


The  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  made  as  good  gains  as  was  desired.  No 
effort  was  made  to  fatten  them.  During  the  whole  feeding  period  of 
116  days  each  steer  in  lots  4  and  5  gained  an  average  of  74  and  68 
pounds,  respectively.  They  were  in  excellent  condition  when  spring 
came. 

Each  steer  in  the  range  lots  (lots  X  and  Y  combined)  gained  an 
average  of  10  pounds  during  the  whole  winter.  They,  too,  were  in 
good  condition  when  grass  came  in  the  spring.  When  cattle  are  turned 
onto  the  open  range  during  the  winter,  as  a  rule,  they  lose  instead 
of  gain  in  weight.  In  some  former  work  the  cattle  which  had  no  feed 
during  the  cold  months  except  what  they  secured  from  the  open  range, 
lost  approximately  100  pounds  each  during  the  winter  time,*  but 
some  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  fact  that  they  came  off  the 
range  several  weeks  earher  than  lots  X  and  Y.  It  is,  however,  a  very 
unusual  occurrence  for  steers  to  make  gain  during  the  winter  months 
when  handled  and  fed  as  were  those  in  lots  X  and  Y. 

QUANTITY  AND  COST  OF  FEED    REQUIRED    TO  MAKE  100  POUNDS  GAIN 

DURING   THE    WINTER. 

The  following  table  shows  that  the  gains  made  during  the  winter 
months  by  the  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  were  expensive  ones.  There 
is  no  way  to  determine  the  cost  of  gains  made  by  the  range  cattle 
(lots  X  and  Y)  as  no  value  or  rental  price  has  ever  been  placed  upon 
the  open  range. 

Table  10. — Quantity  and  co  t  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain  during  the 

unnter  month  \ 

THE  YOUNG  STEERS. 
[Dec.  6,  1909,  to  Mar.  31,  1910, 116  days.] 


Lot. 

4 
6 


Ration. 


/Cottonseed  meal. . 
\Cottonseed  hulls. . 
(Cottonseed  meal. . 
•(Cottonseed  hulls., 
[johnson-frass  hay 


Feed  required 

to  make  100 

pounds  of 

gain. 


Pounds. 


368  \ 
7,/ 


2,07 
424 

1,160 
935 


Cost  of  feed 

to  make  100 

pounds  of 

gain. 


S12.05 


14.71 


THE  COMMON  STEERS. 
[Dec.  6,  1909,  to  Apr.  23,  1910,  139  days.] 


JRange  alone. 


Nothing. 


Each  100  pounds  of  gain  during  the  winter  months  cost  $12.05  and 
$14.71  in  lots  4  and  5,  respectively.     These  were  very  expensive  gains 


>  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  131. 


SUMMEK  FATTENING  ON   PASTURE.  29 

and  hard  to  overcome,  even  when  the  steers  were  continued  on  a  very 
cheap  ration — pasture  and  cottonseed  cake — the  following  summer. 
In  fact,  the  expensive  winter  gains  of  lots  4  and  5  were  never  counter- 
acted by  the  cheap  gains  of  the  following  summer,  as  money  was 
finally  lost  on  these  two  lots  of  cattle.  The  gains  secured  during  the 
winter  months  were  expensive  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  ration 
was  too  near  a  mere  maintenance  ration.  It  is  seen  that  in  lot  4 
368  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  plus  2,077  pounds  of  hulls  were 
required  to  make  100  pounds  of  increase  in  live  weight.  In  lot  5* 
where  Johnson-grass  hay  was  introduced,  424  pounds  of  cottonseed 
meal,  1,160  pounds  of  hulls,  and  935  pounds  of  hay  were  required  to 
make  100  pounds  of  gain. 

Johnson-grass  hay  did  not  improve  the  ration  of  cottonseed  meal 
and  hulls.  Nothing  was  gained  by  the  introduction  of  the  hay.  In 
comparing  the  results  of  lots  4  and  5  it  is  learned  that  935  pounds  of 
Johnson-grass  hay  saved  917  pounds  of  hulls,  but  caused  a  loss  of  56 
pounds  of  cottonseed  meal;  or,  1  ton  of  the  hay  was  worth  $5.26  in 
this  feeding  test,  when  cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls  are 
valued  at  $26  and  $7  a  ton,  respectively.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
in  Part  I  of  this  bulletin  the  same  hay  was  worth  only  $1.31  a  ton  as 
a  fattening  feed.  (See  p.  17.)  The  nearer  a  feed  or  a  combination  of 
feeds  approaches  a  mere  maintenance  ration  the  more  valuable  such 
a  hay  as  Johnson  grass  becomes. 

The  small  increase  in  live  weight  of  the  steers  in  lots  X  and  Y  was 
made  without  cost,  as  the  range,  their  only  feed,  was  free. 

THE   SPRING   COST   OF  THE    STEERS. 

The  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  cost  3|  cents  a  pound  in  the  fall  of  1909; 
those  in  lot  4  averaged  $21.84  each  and  those  in  lot  5  $21.28.  They 
were  well-bred  animals ;  no  scrubs  were  among  them.  The  steers  in 
lots  X  and  Y  were  of  a  very  common  grade  and  cost  only  2  J  cents  a 
pound.  Although  these  cattle  were  not  to  be  fattened  for  the  market 
until  the  next  summer,  they  were  all  bought  during  the  fall  of  1909, 
as  it  is  practically  impossible  to  get  together  a  bunch  of  cattle  in  the 
spring.  However,  it  costs  something  to  feed  cattle  through  the 
winter  months,  and  the  farmer  who  buys  them  in  the  fall  with  the 
intention  of  carrying  them  until  the  following  summer  to  fatten  for 
the  market  is  interested  in  knowing  what  it  will  cost  to  get  them 
through  the  winter  months.  In  other  words,  he  desires  to  know  the 
spring  cost,  which  is  equal  to  the  fall  price  plus  the  cost  of  getting 
the  cattle  through  the  winter  months.  If  it  were  possible  to  get  them 
through  the  winter  months  without  cost,  or  without  gain  or  loss  in 
weight,  the  spring  and  fall  prices  would  be  identical,  but  this  can 
seldom  be  accomplished.  As  a  rule,  the  steers  must  be  fed,  and  they 
commonly  gain  or  lose  in  weight.  These  expenses  and  changes  in 
live  weight  all  have  a  bearing  on  the  spring  price. 


80 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


The  following  table  presents  the  fall  price,  the  cost  to  get  each 
steer  through  the  winter,  and  the  spring  price  after  the  winter  ex- 
penses and  changes  in  live  weight  have  been  taken  into  consideration: 

Table  11. — Average  fall  and  spring  prices  of  the  cattle  and  cost  of  winter  feeding . 

THE  YOUNG  STEERS. 

[Dec.  6, 1909,  to  Mar.  31, 1010, 116  days.] 


Lot. 


Ration. 


fCottonseed  meal . . 
iCottonseed  hulls.. 
[Cottonseed  meal.. 
Cottonseed  hulls. . 
[johnson-grass  hay 


Fall  price 
per  hundred- 
weight. 


S3. 50 
3.50 


Cost  to  feed 

each  steer 

through  the 

winter. 


98. 06 
9.83 


Spring  price 
per  hundred- 
weight. 


S4.41 
4.60 


THE  COMMON  CATTLE 
[Dec.  6,  1909,  to  Apr.  23,  1910.  1.39  daj^.] 


la;PJlu-^.:.. !  ;)fi-! 


JRange  alone . 


J2.25 


Nothing. 


r2.21 


In  lot  4  it  cost  $8.95  to  feed  each  steer  through  the  winter  months. 
In  lot  5,  where  Johnson-grass  hay  was  used,  the  expense  to  feed  each 
steer  for  the  same  length  of  time  was  raised  to  $9.83.  The  Johnson- 
grass  hay  increased  the  expense.  When  these  winter  expenses  are 
added  to  the  original  cost,  and  allowance  made  for  the  winter  gains, 
the  steers  in  the  spring  cost  $4.41  and  $4.60  per  hundredweight  in 
lots  4  and  5,  respectively,  which  brought  their  average  price  to  $30.79 
for  lot  4  and  $31.11  for  lot  5. 

The  steers  in  lots  X  and  Y  were  cheaper  at  the  end  of  the  winter 
than  they  were  the  previous  fall.  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  they 
gained  a  few  pounds  during  the  winter  months  (10  pounds  each), 
when  no  expense  was  attached  to  feeding  them,  as  they  were  grazed 
on  the  open  range.  It  is,  of  course,  an  unusual  occurrence  for  these 
two  factors  to  be  combined  in  this  way.  These  cattle  were  bought  in 
the  fall  of  1909  for  $2.25  a  hundredweight,  but  when  spring  arrived, 
April  23,  1910,  their  cost  per  hundredweight  was  reduced  to  $2.21. 

FATTENING  THE  CATTLE  ON  PASTURE. 

At  the  close  of  the  winter  tests  the  steers  were  redivided  into  lots, 
turned  into  the  summer  pastures,  and  fattened  for  the  late  summer 
market. 

The  winter  feeding  in  lots  4  and  5  was  discontinued  March  31,  1910. 
On  April  2,  1910,  the  pastures  were  ready  for  grazing,  so  the  summer 
fattening  tests  were  inaugurated  on  this  date.  The  steers  in  lots  4 
and  5  were  combined  into  one  lot  and  grazed  upon  the  same  pasture 
throughout  the  summer  experiment. 


SUMMER  FATTENING  ON   PASTURE. 


31 


The  range  or  common  cattle  (lots  X  and  Y)  were  divided  into  two 
lots,  as  nearly  equal  as  possible  in  quality,  size,  and  breeding,  and 
placed  upon  separate  pastures  on  April  23,  1910.  Lot  X  was  fed 
cottonseed  cake  along  with  the  pasture;  lot  Y  was  fed  nothing  except 
pasture. 

The  feeding  was  done  once  a  day  in  open  feed  troughs;  these 
troughs  were  conveniently  located  in  the  pastures.  In  order  that  all 
of  the  cattle  would  come  out  to  the  troughs  the  feeding  was  done  in 
the  cool  of  the  evening  or  about  sundown. 

An  abundance  of  water  and  salt  was  kept  before  the  animals  all 
the  time. 

DAILY    RATIONS. 

To  avoid  scouring  and  other  ill  results,  steers  which  are  being 
fattened  must  become  accustomed  gradually  to  cottonseed  meal  and 
cottonseed  cake.  Many  feeders  increase  the  feed  too  rapidly  for  best 
results.  The  temptation  is  to  get  the  steers  on  full  feed  within  a  few 
days  after  the  feeding  begins,  but  this  tendency  should  be  curbed. 
The  following  table  illustrates  the  amount  of  cottonseed  cake  given 
each  steer  daily  by  periods  of  28  days: 

Table  12. — Daily  ration  for  each  -teer  during  summer  fattening. 


Period. 


First  28  days... 
Second  28  days. 
Third  28da5's.. 
Fourth  28  days. 
Fifth  28  days... 
Last  7  days 


Cottonseed  cake  and  pas- 
ture. 


Young  steers, 

lots  4  and  6 

combined 

(Apr.  2  to 

Aug.  26, 1910, 

147  days). 


Pounds. 
2.19 
4.36 
5.50 
6.00 
6.00 
5.14 


Common 
steers,  lots  X 
and  Yi  (Apr. 
23  to  Sept.  2, 

1910,  133 
days). 


Pounds. 

2.84 
3.48 
3.48 
5.00 
»  4.91 


Pasture  cnly. 


>  Last  21  days. 


Attention  is  again  called  to  the  fact  that  the  results  secured  in 
lots  4  and  5  (now  combined  into  one  lot)  can  not  be  compared  with 
those  secured  in  lots  X  and  Y.  It  should  be  noted  that  these  lots 
were  not  started  on  feeds  at  the  same  date,  sold  at  the  same  time,  or 
fed  and  cared  for  similarly  the  preceding  winter.  Thjs  is  not  a  test 
in  which  common  cattle  are  compared  with  good  ones.  Lots  X  and 
Y,  however,  are  comparable  with  each  other. 

All  of  the  cattle,  except  lot  Y,  which  were  on  pasture  alone,  were 
given  a  very  small  daily  feed  of  cake  during  the  first  few  weeks. 
Each  of  the  young  steers  received  an  average  of  only  2.19  pounds  of 
cake  daily  during  the  first  28  days.     This  amount  was  increased  from 


&2 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


time  to  time,  as  shown  in  the  table.  For  a  time  each  steer  was  eating 
6  pounds  of  cake  a  day,  but  this  amount  was  finally  reduced  some- 
what on  account  of  scouring  and  hot  weather. 

At  first  the  common  steers  (lot  X)  were  also  given  a  very  small 
allowance  of  cottonseed  cake,  each  steer  receiving  an  average  of  2.84 
pounds  of  cake  daily  during  the  first  28  days.  The  steers  in  this  lot 
were  never  given  a  daily  feed  of  over  5  pounds  of  cake.  The  steers 
in  lot  Y  received  no  feed  at  all  in  addition  to  the  pasture,  the  object 
being  to  learn  whether  it  would  pay  to  feed  cottonseed  cake  to  steers 
of  this  grade  while  grazing  a  fairly  good  pasture. 

WEIGHTS  AND   GAINS   ON   PASTURE. 

The  following  table  shows  the  average  initial  weight,  average  final 
weight,  and  the  total  gains  and  average  daily  gains  of  each  steer. 
All  of  the  gains  were  unsatisfactory.  To  have  been  entirely  satisfac- 
tory the  average  daily  gains  should  have  been  not  less  than  2  pounds. 
The  authors  are  unable  to  state  positively  why  the  gains  were  no 
greater,  but  it  was  probably  due  to  the  unusual  amount  of  rain  during 
the  grazing  season.  The  pastures  were  on  low  grounds  which  con- 
tinued extremely  wet  throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  test.  The 
grass  made  a  good  growth  and  the  steers  seemed  to  be  well  filled 
practically  all  of  the  time,  but  of  course  the  grass  that  they  obtained 
was  very  soft  and  full  of  water. 

Table  13. — Weights,  total  gains,  and  average  daily  gains  of  the  steers  during  the  summer 

of  1910. 

THE  YOUNG  STEERS. 
[Apr.  2  to  Aug.  26,  1910,  147  days.] 


Lot. 

Number 

of 
steers. 

Ration. 

Average 

initial 

weight  of 

each  steer. 

Average 

final 
weight  of 
each  steer. 

Average 

total  gain 

of  each 

steer. 

Average 

daily  gain 

of  each 

steer. 

4 

}     » 

Pasture  and  cottonseed  cake 

Pounds. 

687 

Pounds. 
855 

Pounds. 
1G8 

Pounds. 
1.  U 

5 

/rt 


THE  COMMON  STEERS. 
[Apr.  23  to  Sept.  2,  1910, 133  days.] 


X 

28 
16 

Pasture  and  cottonseed  cake 

572 
580 

761 
757 

189 
177 

1.42 

Y 

Pasture  alone 

1.33 

Each  of  the  young  steers  made  a  total  gain  of  168  pounds  during 
the  147  days  that  they  were  on  feed.  This  was  an  average  daily  gain 
of  1.14  pounds.  As  stated  before,  these  gains  were  exceedingly 
unsatisfactory.  With  the  amount  of  cottonseed  cake  they  received 
along  with  the  pasture  it  was  expected  that  they  would  make  not  less 
than  an  average  daily  gain  of  2  pounds  a  day.     In  some  former  feeding 


SUMMER  FATTENING  ON  PASTURE. 


83 


work  *  the  daily  gains  secured  averaged  more  than  2  pounds  when 
the  pastures  were  supplemented  by  cottonseed  cake. 

The  common  cattle  of  lot  Y  (pasture  alone)  made  fairly  satisfactory 
gains,  although  larger  gains  were  expected.  Each  steer  made  an 
average  daily  gain  of  1.33  pounds,  or  a  total  gain  of  177  pounds  for 
the  whole  summer  of  133  days.  The  steers  (lot  X)  which  received 
some  cottonseed  cake  along  with  the  pasture  made  a  very  little  larger 
daily  gain  than  the  ones  on  pasture  alone.  Each  cake-fed  steer  made 
an  average  daily  gain  of  1.43  pounds,  or  a  total  gain  of  189  pounds  for 
the  whole  summer,  while  the  pasture  steers  each  gained  177  pounds, 
or  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.33  pounds. 

QUANTITY  AND  COST  OF    FEED  REQUIRED    TO  MAKE  100    POUNDS  GAIN. 

When  cattle  are  bemg  fattened  and  the  gains  are  small,  they  are 
almost  certain  to  be  expensive.  The  results  secured  in  this  experi- 
ment were  no  exception  to  the  general  rule.  The  table  following 
shows  that  the  summer  gains  were  extremely  expensive  when  com- 
pared with  former  experiments  that  have  been  made  in  this  State. 
At  least  two  factors  were  involved  in  making  these  summer  gains 
expensive.  First,  the  cattle  were  fed  a  rather  heavy  ration  of  high- 
priced  cottonseed  cake  along  with  the  pasture,  and,  second,  the  cattle 
did  not  respond  to  the  liberal  feeding,  due  probably  at  least  in  part  to 
the  wet  pastures. 

Table  14. — Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain. 

THE  YOUNG  STEERS. 

[Apr.  2  to  Aug.  16, 1910, 147  days.] 


Lot. 

Number 

of 

cattle. 

Ration. 

Total  cost  of 

feed  and 

pasture  for 

each  steer. 

Feed  re- 
quired to 
make  100 
pounds  of 
gain. 

Cast  to  make 
100  pounds 

of  gain 
(including 
pasture). 

4 

}     « 

$11.54 

Pounds. 
423 

$7.06 

5 

THE  COMMON  CATTLE. 
[Apr.  23  to  Sept.  2, 1910, 133  days.] 


Pasture  and  cottonseed  cake. 
Pasture  alone 


$9.10 
2.38 


274 
None. 


$4.82 
L5S 


It  cost  $11.54  to  feed  each  steer  in  lots  4  and  5  through  the  summer 
when  cottonseed  cake  is  valued  at  $26  a  ton  and  the  pasture  at  50 
cents  a  month  for  each  animal.  Or  it  required  423  pounds  of  cotton- 
seed cake,  at  a  cost  of  $7.06,  to  make  100  pounds  of  increase  in  live 
weight.     This  was  an  unusually  expensive  gain  for  summer  feeding. 

1  See  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  131,  p.  40. 


34  FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

The  following  extract  is  taken  from  Bureau  of  Animal  Industiy 
Bulletin  131,  page  41,  which  is  a  report  of  some  previous  work  done 
in  fattening  cattle  in  the  summer  time  on  pasture: 

In  every  case  above  the  cost  to  make  100  pounds  increase  in  live  weight  was  very- 
low.  (In  one  case  $1.18  when  pasture  was  used  alone,  in  another  case  $1.03;  when 
cottonseed  cake  was  used  it  cost  only  $2.56  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain  in  one  experi- 
ment,  and  $3.21  in  a  second  test.)  When  steers  are  fattened  during  the  winter  time 
each  pound  of  gain  is  put  on  at  a  loss,  as  each  pound  put  on  may  be  expected  to  cost 
from  8  to  12  cents;  and  the  profit  is  dependent  upon  the  enhancement  of  the  value 
of  the  steer  over  and  above  the  selling  value  of  pounds  of  gain  made.  In  these  tests 
each  pound  put  on  during  the  fattening  period  was  put  on  at  a  profit,  a  very  unusual 
occurrence  in  fattening  beef  cattle.  These  cheap  finishing  gains  made  the  feeding 
operations  comparatively  safe  as  far  as  profits  were  concerned.  As  stated  before, 
these  cheap  gains  were  due  to  two  factors;  first,  the  cattle  had  a  cheap  and  succulent 
roughage— pasture.  Second,  the  amount  of  concentrated  feeds  used  was  kept  down 
to  a  comparatively  small  figure;  from  2.76  to  3.31  pounds  of  cottonseed  cake  and  4.48 
pounds  of  cotton  seed  were  fed  each  steer  daily. 

In  lot  X,  one  of  the  lots  of  common  cattle,  274  pounds  of  cake 
were  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain,  at  an  expense  of  $4.82 
per  hundredweight.  To  feed  each  steer  in  this  lot  all  summer  it 
cost  $9.10,  when  the  feeds  are  valued  as  above.  The  cattle  in  lot  Y 
received  no  cake  in  addition  to  the  pasture,  so  it  cost  only  $2.38  to 
feed  each  one  from  April  23  to  September  2,  when  pasture  is  valued 
at  50  cents  a  month  per  head. 

FINANCIAL   STATEMENT   OF  THE    SUMMER   FEEDING. 

As  stated  before,  the  cattle  in  lots  4  and  5  cost  3^  cents  a  pound  in 
the  fall  of  1909.  These  cattle  were  fed  through  the  winter  of  1909-10 
on  a  light  ration  of  feeds  as  heretofore  outlined.  When  spring 
arrived,  and  the  expense  of  the  winter  feeding  had  been  added  to 
fall  price,  the  steers  had  cost  $4.41  and  $4.60  per  hundredweight 
respectively.  These  were  the  values  placed  upon  them  at  the 
beginning  of  the  summer  feeding,  April  2,  1910.  On  August  26, 
1910,  they  were  sold  for  $4.50  per  hundredweight  on  the  farm,  after 
a  3  per  cent  shrink. 

The  common  cattle  in  lots  X  and  Y  were  also  purchased  in  the  fall 
of  1909,  costing,  however,  only  2{  cents  a  pound.  They  ate  no 
expensive  feeds  during  the  winter  months  as  they  were  turned  out 
on  the  open  range.  On  April  23,  1910,  they  were  taken  off  this 
winter  range  and  weighed  again,  and  it  was  learned  that  each  steer 
had  gained  10  pounds  during  the  winter.  Owing  to  the  fact  that 
they  had  been  fed  no  feeds  during  the  winter  upon  which  a  price 
was  placed  (open  range  has  no  value  placed  upon  it),  they  were 
really  cheaper  in  the  spring  of  1910  than  they  were  the  previous  fall, 
as  they  had  gained  in  weight.  This  condition  of  affairs  is,  of  course, 
very  unusual.     When  this  increase  in  weight  was  taken  into  con- 


SUMMEK  FATTENING   ON   PASTURE.  35 

sideration,  the  cattle  cost  $2.21  per  hundredweight  in  the  spring  of 
1910;  at  the  beginning  of  the  summer  work  this  value  was  placed 
upon  them.  On  September  2,  1910,  they  were  sold  and  shipped  to 
the  Atlanta  market,  realizing  $3.87^  per  hundredweight  for  lot  X, 
and  $3.60  per  hundredweight  for  lot  Y. 

Financial  statement  of  lots  4  and  5. 

Lot  4.  Cottonseed  cake  and  pasture: 

By  sale  18  steers,  15,064  pounds,  at  $4.50  per  hundredweight $677.  85 

To  18  steers,  12,566  pounds,  at  $4.41  per  hundredweight $554. 16 

To  12,770  pounds  cottonseed  cake,  at  $26  per  ton 166.  01 

To  pasture  for  5\  months,  at  50  cents  a  month  per  head ^'^- ^^ 

Total  expense ^^'^'  '^^ 

Totelloss ^^-^ 

4  97 
Loss  per  steer ' 

Lot  5.  Cottonseed  cake  and  pasture: 

By  sale  17  steers,  13,978  pounds,  at  $4.50  per  hundredweight 629.  01 

To  17  steers,  11,494  pounds,  at  $4.60  per  hundredweight $528.  72 

To  12,061  pounds  cottonseed  cake,  at  $26  a  ton - 156.  79 

To  pasture  for  5i  months,  at  50  cents  a  month  per  head ^^- ^^ 

730. 13 

Totalloss 10112 

Loss  per  steer 

It  is  seen  that  the  steers  in  both  of  these  lots  were  fed  at  a  loss, 
each  steer  losing  $4.97  and  $5.95  in  lots  4  and  5,  respectively.  It 
should  be  noted  that  the  expense  of  feeding  these  cattle  through  the 
previous  winter  is  also  charged  against  them  in  the  above  statements. 
The  steers  in  lot  4  were  fed  through  the  previous  winter  on  cotton- 
seed  meal  and  huUs,  while  those  of  lot  5  had  some  Johnson-grass  hay 
added  to  the  basal  ration  of  cottonseed  meal  and  huUs.  More  money 
was  lost  on  the  st«ers  in  lot  5  because  of  the  fact  that  Johnson-grasa 
hay  increased  the  expense  of  the  winter  ration.     (See  p.  16.) 

This  work  clearly  shows  that  profits  can  not  be  made  upon  cattle 
when  the  conditions  are  as  they  were  m  this  test.  It  is  true  that  the 
beef  cattle  market  was  demoralized  just  at  the  time  of  sale,  but 
even  with  a  normal  market  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  have 
made  money  on  these  young  steers.  To  have  come  out  even  on  the 
operation  the  steers  of  lots  4  and  5  would  have  had  to  sell  for  $5.09 
and  $5.24  per  hundredweight,  respectively.  This  they  would  not 
have  done  even  under  normal  market  conditions.  Too  much  high- 
priced  feed  had  been  fed  to  these  steers.  Furthermore,  subsequent 
work  seems  to  teach  that,  while  they  were  fed  too  long  a  time  in  the 
summer,  they  were  not  fed  liberally  enough  during  the  winter.  If 
they  had  been  sold  earlier  in  the  summer  the  financial  outcome 
would  not  have  been  so  discouraging,  as  the  price  would  have  been 


B6  FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

better  and  considerable  high-priced  feed  would  liave  been  saved. 
In  fact,  a  Uttle  profit  would  have  been  secured  if  they  had  been  sold 
about  July  1.  Then  again,  the  expense  of  feeding  them  during  the 
winter  was  heavy,  while  only  small  gains  were  secured.  It  cost  $8.95 
and  $9.83  to  feed  each  steer  in  lots  4  and  5  through  the  winter  months. 
If  profits  are  to  be  made  in  handling  cattle  in  this  manner,  the  winter 
feed  bill  must  be  carefully  looked  after. 

Two  or  three  methods  of  feeding  can  be  adopted  by  which  the 
winter  feeding  can  be  done  more  economically  than  was  the  case  in 
these  tests.  In  the  first  place,  these  young  steers  were  not  fed  a 
sufficient  amount  of  feed  during  the  winter  months.  Their  ration 
was  too  nearly  a  mere  maintenance  ration.  In  the  second  place, 
the  open  range  in  some  parts  of  the  State  can  be  used  to  supplement 
the  high-priced  feeds.  With  young  animals  the  range  can  never 
entirely  take  -the  place  of  high-priced  feeds,  as  young  animals  must 
be  fed  during  the  winter  months  if  satisfactory  results  are  secured. 
This  system  of  wintering  cattle,  however,  will  disappear  as  soon  as 
the  State  becomes  more  densely  populated  and  the  large  farms  are 
divided  into  small  ones.  In  the  third  place,  the  old  cotton  and  corn 
fields  can  be  made  to  be  exceedingly  profitable  when  fenced;  both 
the  young  and  old  animals  can  be  turned  on  these  fields  and  often- 
times secure  one-half  of  their  winter  feed  from  them.  This  third 
method  is  a  permanent  one  and  will  be  introduced  more  and  more 
€is  our  farming  conditions  change. 

Financial  statement  of  lots  X  and  Y. 

liOt  X.  Cottonseed  cake  and  pasture: 

By  sale  28  steers,  20,665  pounds,  at  $3.87  J  per  hundredweight $800. 77 

To  28  steers,  16,011  pounds,  at  $2.19  per  hundredweight $350.  64 

To  14,493  pounds  cottonseed  cake,  at  $26  a  ton 188.  41 

To  pasture,  A\  months,  at  50  cents  a  month  per  head 66.  50 

605.55 

Total  profit 195.  22 

Profit  per  steer 6.  97 

Lot  Y.  Pasture  alone: 

By  sale  15  steers,  11,008  pounds,  at  $3.60  per  hundredweight 396.  29 

To  15  steers,  8,697  pounds,  at  $2.25  per  hundredweight $195.68 

To  pasture,  4i  months,  at  50  cents  a  month  per  head 36.  63 

23L31 

Total  profit 104.98 

Profit  per  steer 11.  00 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  spring  price  of  these  cattle  is  stated  in 
other  places  to  be  $2.21  per  hundredweight.  Tliis  is  correct  for  the 
entire  lot,  but  after  they  were  divided  it  was  found  that  the  value  of 
lot  X  was  $2.19  and  lot  Y  $2.25  per  hundredweight. 

These  steers  were  sold  on  the  farm  with  a  3  per  cent  shrink.  Those 
in  lot  X  sold  for  $3.87^  per  hundredweight  and  those  in  lot  Y  for 


SUMMER  FATTENING  ON  PASTURE. 


37 


$3.60.  Exceedingly  satisfactory  profits  were  made  on  these  cattle, 
$6.97  clear  profit  being  made  on  each  steer  in  lot  X,  while  each 
animal  in  lot  Y  returned  a  profit  of  $11. 

In  this  particular  experiment  it  did  not  pay  to  supplement  the 
pasture  with  the  cottonseed  cake;  more  money  would  have  been 
made  if  the  cake  had  not  been  used.  These  results,  however,  do  not 
agree  with  others  secured  in  foi-mer  work.*  The  cattle  in  lot  X  did 
not  respond  to  the  extra  feed  of  cottonseed  cake;  this  is  shown  to  be 
true  by  the  daily  gains.  The  steers  in  lot  Y,  where  no  cake  was  fed^ 
made  an  average  daily  gain  of  1 .33  pounds,  while  the  steers  of  lot  X> 
where  the  cake  was  fed  along  with  the  pasture,  made  an  average  daily 
gain  of  only  1.42  pounds.  This  is  unusual  and  the  authors  regard, 
the  results  as  abnormal. 

SLAUGHTER  RECORDS. 

The  steers  of  lots  4  and  5  were  sliipped  to  Atlanta,  where  complete 
slaughter  records  were  secured.  Those  of  lots  X  and  Y  were  also 
sliipped  to  Atlanta,  but  no  slaughter  data  were  secured. 

Table  16. — Shipping  weights  and  slaughter  data. 


Lot. 

Number  of 
steers. 

1                          I 

;                    1 

Total  weight  \  Total  weight ,    ^e™te' 

on  farm.        at  Atlanta.   |     p^r  steer. 

1                        1 

Total 

dressed 

weight  at 

Atlanta. 

Per  cent 

dressed  out 

by  farm 

weight. 

Per  cent 
dressed  out 
by  Atlanta 

weight. 

4 
5 

18 
17 

Pounds.           Pounds.      \      Pounds. 
15,530                14,920  {                 33.9 
14,402                13,740  1                 38.9 

1                           '■ 

PouMs. 

8,252 
7,531 

53.1 
52.3 

55.3 
54.8 

The  cattle  were  driven  4  miles  from  the  farm  to  the  railroad. 
The  shrinkage  en  route  was  comparatively  small,  being  33.9  pounds 
and  38.9  pounds  for  each  animal  in  lots  4  and  5,  respectively.  By 
Atlanta  weights  the  steers  in  lot  4  dressed  55.3  per  cent,  while  those 
in  lot  5  dressed  54.8  per  cent. 

SUMMARY. 

1.  Two  separate  tests  are  reported  in  Part  II.  The  steers  in  lota 
4  and  5  were  a  high-grade  bunch  of  young  cattle;  those  in  lots  X  and 
Y  were  the  common  cattle  of  Sumter  and  neighboring  counties. 
These  tests  are  not  comparable. 

-     2.  The  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  were  carried  through  the  winter  of 
1909-10  on  the  following  feeds: 

Lot  4:  Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls.  Lot  5:  Cottonseed 
meal,  cottonseed  hulls,  Johnson-grass  hay. 

The  general  plan  was  to  give  sufficient  feed  to  produce  small  gains 
throughout  the  winter  months.  No  effort  was  made  to  fatten  the 
steers,  as  they  were  to  be  fattened  the  following  summer  on  pasture. 

^ . ■■ 

1  See  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  131. 


38  FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

3.  The  steers  in  lots  X  and  Y  were  carried  through  the  winter  of 
1909-10  on  the  range  alone;  no  purchased  feeds  were  used.  The 
object  was  to  fatten  these  cattle  the  following  summer  on  pasture. 

4.  The  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  ate  the  following  amounts  of  feed  each 
day  during  the  winter: 

Lot  4:  Cottonseed  meal,  2.35  pounds;  cottonseed  hulls,  13.29 
pounds.  Lot  5:  Cottonseed  meal,  2.35  pounds;  cottonseed  hulls, 
6.82  pounds;  Johnson-grass  hay,  5.50  pounds. 

5.  The  test  was  inaugurated  December  6,  1909.  On  this  date  the 
steers  in  lots  4  and  5  averaged  624  and  608  pounds  in  weight.  At 
the  close  of  the  winter  period.  April  1,  1910,  the  steers  had  attained 
an  average  weiglit  of  698  and  676  pounds  in  the  respective  lots. 

6.  The  steers  in  lots  X  and  Y  (combined  during  the  winter  months) 
averaged  565  pounds  in  weight  at  the  beginning  of  the  test,  December 
6,  1909.  At  the  close  of  the  winter,  April  23,  1910,  they  had  attained 
an  average  weight  of  575  pounds. 

7.  To  feed  each  steer  through  the  winter  cost  $8.95  and  $9.83  in 
lots  4  and  5,  respectively.  Johnson-grass  hay  increased  the  expense; 
it  did  not  pay  to  use  the  hay  along  with  the  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls! 

8.  The  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  cost  3^  cents  a  pound  when  they  were 
purchased  in  the  fall  of  1909.  At  the  end  of  the  winter  feeding  they 
had  cost  $4.41  and  $4.60  per  hundredweight,  respectively,  after  the 
gains  were  taken  into  consideration. 

9.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  conamon  cattle  in  lots  X  and  Y  were 
fed  nothing  except  range  during  the  cold  months,  but  at  the  same 
tmie  gained  a  Uttle  in  weight,  they  were  cheaper  when  spring  opened 
than  they  were  the  previous  fall.  They  were  bought  in  the  fall  of 
1909  for  $2.25  per  hundredweight,  and  at  the  end  of  the  winter 
period,  April  23,  1910,  their  cost  per  hundredweight  was  reduced  to 
$2.21. 

10.  When  the  spring  of  1910  arrived  all  the  cattle  were  turned  on 
pasture  and  fattened  for  the  late  summer  market.  Lots  4  and  5 
were  combined  into  one  lot,  while  lots  X  and  Y  were  separated  into 
two  lots.  The  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  were  fed  cottonseed  cake  along 
with  pasture  from  April  2,  1910,  to  August  26,  1910.  The  steers  in 
lots  X  and  Y  were  given  the  following  feeds  from  April  23,  1910,  to 
September  2,  1910:  Lot  X,  pasture  and  cottonseed  cake;  lotY, 
pasture  alone. 

11.  The  steers  in  lots  4  and  5  (now  combined)  made  an  average 
daily  gain  of  only  1.14  pounds  during  the  pasture  season.  This  was 
unsatisfactory. 

12.  The  steers  in  lots  X  and  Y  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.42 
and  1.33  pounds,  respectively,  during  the  pasture  season.  This  was 
also  unsatisfactory. 


SUMMER   FATTENING   ON   PASTTJRE.  39 

13.  Including  the  cost  of  pasture,  it  cost  $7.06  to  make  100  pounds 
of  gain  in  lots  4  and  5  during  the  pasture  period.  These  were  unusu- 
ally expensive  gains  for  tlie  summer  season. 

14.  Including  the  cost  of  pasture,  it  cost  $4.82  and  $1.55  to  make 
100  pounds  of  gain  in  lots  X  and  Y,  respectively. 

15.  The  reader's  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  results 
secured  with  lots  4  and  5  are  not  comparable  with  those  secured 
with  lots  X  and  Y. 

16.  Money  was  lost  on  the  cattle  m  lots  4  and  5 — $4.97  on  each 
steer  in  lot  4,  and  $5.95  on  each  one  in  lot  5. 

17.  Excellent  profits  were  reaUzed  on  the  cattle  in  lots  X  and  Y — •' 
$6.97  on  each  steer  in  lot  X,  and  $11  on  each  one  in  lot  Y. 

In  this  experiment  it  did  not  pay  to  supplement  the  pasture  with 
the  cottonseed  cake.  Tliis  result,  however,  does  not  agree  with  other 
results  secured  in  former  experiments.  For  reasons  stated  in  the 
text  of  tliis  bulletin,  the  authors  regard  the  results  as  abnormal. 


m.  THE  VALUE  OF  SHELTER  FOR  FATTENING  CATTLE  IN 

ALABAMA. 


INTRODUCTION. 

-  During  the  winters  of  1904,  1905,  and  1906  tliis  bureau,  working 
in  cooperation  with  the  Alabama  Experiment  Station,  carried  through 
some  tests  to  determine  the  value,  if  any,  of  shelter  in  fattening 
southern  steers.  These  results  were  pubhshed  in  Bulletin  103  of  the 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry.  In  comparing  the  daily  gains  the 
authors  stated: 

The  animals  in  pen  2  were  fed  under  an  open  shed,  and  pen  6  had  no  shelter.  The 
average  daily  gains  for  the  three  years  was  1.55  pounds  for  the  pen  under  shelter  and 
1.47  pounds  for  the  lot  without  shelter.  In  the  two  wet  winters  (1904-1905  and  1905- 
1906)  the  largest  daily  gains  were  made  by  the  lot  under  shelter;  but  in  the  mild  and 
rather  dry  weather  of  1906-1907  the  lot  without  shelter  made  more  rapid  gains. 

With  regard  to  feed  requirements  the  authors  further  stated : 

In  two  experiments  out  of  three  and  in  the  average  for  three  years,  shelter  resulted 
in  a  slight  economy  in  use  of  concentrated  feeds  and  a  slight  loss  in  the  use  of  roughage. 
In  other  words,  shelter,  on  the  whole,  saved  0.2  of  a  pound  of  cottonseed  meal  per 
pound  gain  and  lost  0.49  of  a  pound  of  roughage.  The  steers  out  of  doors  consumed 
a  larger  ration  of  roughage. 

Or,  in  other  words,  when  the  cottonseed  meal  is  valued  at  $26  a 
ton  and  hulls  at  $7  a  ton  the  shelter  saved  practically  9  cents  on  every 
100  pounds  of  gain  made.  Sheds  can  not  be  built  and  maintained 
with  tliis  small  saving. 

However,  the  above  steers  were  not  managed,  with  reference  to 
bedding  and  available  space  for  exercise,  as  they  are  usually  fed  on 
the  farms  of  Alabama. 

The  feed  lots  were  16  by  90  feet,  the  ground  sloping  away  from  the  shed.  These 
lots  had  a  good  slope,  but  still  became  very  muddy  in  wet  weather.  The  lot  without 
shelter  was  at  times  several  inches  deep  in  mud,  so  that  the  steers  had  no  dry  place 
to  lie  down.  None  of  the  lots  were  bedded,  though  the  sheds  were.  The  feed  troughs 
were  under  the  sheds.  The  water  troughs  were  near  the  feed  troughs  and  under  the 
shed,  the  water  being  supplied  from  a  well.  The  troughs  had  float  valves,  so  that  a 
fresh  supply  of  water  was  kept  in  them  at  all  times. 

The  average  feeder  of  the  State  does  not  confine  the  fattening 

steers  in  small  lots  16  by  90  feet;  the  Bureau  and  Station  authorities, 

however,  on  account  of  the  lack  of  ground,  had  to  do  so,  and  of  course 

the  steers  in  the  lot  without  shelter  were  at  a  disadvantage  on  account 

40 


VALUE  OF   SHELTEB  FOB  FATTENING   CATTLE.  41 

of  the  deep  mud.  When  the  farmer  feeds  without  shelter  the  steers 
can  usually  find  a  dry  piece  of  ground  on  which  to  lie,  as  they  are  not 
confined  in  small  lots. 

In  connection  with  another  line  of  work  during  the  winter  of 
1910-11  an  opportunity  presented  itself  to  cairy  through  another 
experiment  along  tliis  line  upon  an  extensive  scale,  and  the  condi- 
tions surrounding  the  present  test  were  more  nearly  in  keeping  with 
average  farm  conditions  than  were  those  of  the  former  experiments. 

The  work  was  done  in  cooperation  with  Mr.  E.  F.  Allison,  of  Sumter 
County,  Ala.  Mr.  Allison  furnished  the  cattle  and  the  feed,  and  the 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  and  the  Alabama  Experiment  Station 
provided  a  trained  man  to  look  after  the  details  of  feeding.  Mr. 
L.  W.  Shook  was  stationed  on  the  farm  and  had  personal  supervision 
of  the  experiment. 

PLAN  OF  THE   EXPERIMENT. 

This  work  was  planned  with  two  objects  in  view: 

1.  To  study  various  methods  of  making  and  saving  manure  when 
beef  cattle  are  fattened  during  the  winter  months. 

One  lot  of  steers  was  fed  on  a  5-acre  tract  of  level  sandy  land,  so 
that  all  the  manure  they  made  was  deposited  upon  the  land  without 
the  expense  of  hauling.  A  second  bunch  of  cattle  was  fed  in  a  small 
lot,  across  one  side  of  which  was  a  good  shed.  Both  the  lot  and  the 
shed  were  bedded  when  necessary.  The  steers  could  always  find  dry 
places  upon  which  to  lie.  An  accurate  account  was  kept  of  the 
amount  of  bedding  hauled,  the  labor  required  to  haul  it,  and  the  ex- 
pense of  hauling  the  manure  from  the  bam  to  a  second  5-acre  tract 
of  land  adjoining  the  first  tract.  The  comparative  value  of  the  two 
methods  of  making  and  saving  manure  is  to  be  finally  measured  in 
terms  of  subsequent  yields  of  corn  and  cotton. 

2.  To  study  the  value,  if  any,  of  shelter  in  fattening  southern  beef 
animals. 

The  results  of  tlie  second  object  are  reported  in  the  following  pages. 
Sufficient  information  relative  to  the  first  object  has  not  been  col- 
lected to  warrant  a  report. 

THE  CATTLE. 

The  cattle  used  in  tliis  test  were  a  mixed  lot  of  steers,  heifers,  and 
cows,  averaging  from  2  to  4  years  of  age.  As  the  main  object  of  the 
test  was  to  study  methods  of  making  and  saving  manure,  the  quality 
of  the  animals  was  somewhat  neglected.  They  were  the  common 
cattle  of  Sumter  and  neighboring  counties;  only  a  very  few  showed 
signs  of  improved  beef  blood.  They  cost  $2.30  per  hundredweight 
during  the  late  fall  of  1910.  The  price  paid  shows  that  the  quality 
was  poor,  as  the  best  feeders  of  the  county  were  selling  for  $3  to  $3.50 
per  hundredweight. 


42  FEEDING  BEEF   CATTLE  IN   ALABAMA. 

PRELIMINARY  MANAGEMENT  AND  FEEDING. 

A  few  of  tlie  cattle  were  raised  upon  the  farm  where  the  experiment 
was  conducted;  the  majority,  liowever,  were  purchased  from  neigh- 
bors. Some  of  the  cattle  were  purchased  early  in  the  fall;  these, 
together  with  the  few  that  were  raised  on  the  farm,  were  grazed  upon 
a  large  pasture,  with  no  additional  feed,  from  October  10  to  October  21 , 
1910.  On  October  21,  30  head  were  taken  from  this  pasture  and 
turned  into  a  peanut  pasture  where  hogs  and  sheep  were  grazing. 
Wliile  they  were  on  peanuts  each  animal  was  given  a  daily  feed  of  1 
pound  of  cottonseed  cake.  On  October  31  they  were  taken  back  to 
the  first-mentioned  pasture  and  the  daily  allowance  of  cake  was 
raised  to  2  pounds  for  each  animal.  As  cold  weather  approached  the 
value  of  the  pasture  gradually  decreased,  and  the  amount  of  cake  was 
therefore  gradually  increased.  By  December  16,  1910,  each  animal 
was  eating  practically  4  pounds  of  cake  each  day.  On  this  date  they 
were  taken  off  the  pasture,,  as  it  was  of  no  further  value,  and  the  test 
inaugurated. 

The  cattle  were  all  dehorned  before  the  experiment  began. 

Individual  weights  of  the  cattle  were  secured  at  the  beginning  and 
end  of  the  test.     Lot  weights  were  secured  every  28  days. 

Feeding  was  done  twice  each  day,  once  about  7  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing and  again  at  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  The  cottonseed  meal  was 
mixed  with  the  hulls  by  hand.  Water  was  kept  before  the  cattle  all 
the  time.     Salt  was  fed  once  a  week. 

LOTS  AND  SHELTER. 

The  cattle  were  divided  into  two  lots.  Lot  1  was  fed  in  a  small  lot, 
across  the  east  side  of  which  extended  a  shed  and  the  feed  troughs; 
the  animals  therefore  had  the  privilege  of  standing  either  under  the 
shed  or  in  the  open  lot.  From  time  to  time  sufficient  bedding  was 
hauled  to  cover  the  entire  lot.  The  object  was  to  keep  the  whole 
lot  well  bedded,  but  several  times  during  the  test  that  part  of  the 
lot  not  under  shelter  became  exceedingly  muddy.  However,  the 
cattle  could  always  find  dry  places. 

The  steers  in  lot  2  were  fed  on  a  5-acre  tract  of  sandy  land  with  no 
shelter  at  all.  This  tract  of  land  had  been  under  cultivation  for 
several  years,  so  the  trees  had  been  removed.  The  feed  troughs, 
which  were  also  in  the  open,  were  made  in  such  a  way  that  they  could 
be  pulled  from  place  to  place;  in  this  way  the  manure  was  evenly 
distributed  over  the  field.  The  soil  was  sandy,  so  the  ground  never 
became  exceedingly  muddy,  although  the  winter  of  1910-11  was  an 
unusually  wet  one. 


VALUE   OF   SHELTER  FOR  FATTENING  CATTLE. 
CHARACTER  AND  PRICE  OF  FEEDS. 


43 


Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls  were  fed  to  both  lots.  No 
other  feeds  were  used.  Both  the  meal  and  hulls  were  of  good  quality. 
The  following  prices  were  taken  as  a  basis  upon  which  to  make  the 
financial  estimates: 

Per  ton. 

Cottonseed  meal $26.  00 

Cottonseed  hulls 7.  00 

DAILY  RATIONS. 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  majority  of  our  southern 
farmers  feed  too  much  cottonseed  meal  to  cattle  which  are  being  fat- 
tened. The  average  feeder  is  tempted  to  increase  the  amount  of  cot- 
tonseed meal  too  rapidly  at  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period  and 
continue  to  increase  the  amount  until  the  total  feed  of  meal  is 
entirely  too  great.  When  this  is  done  the  cattle  are  oftentimes 
"burnt  out"  by  the  time  they  have  been  fed  from  70  to  80  days 
and  must  then  be  sold  often  under  unfavorable  market  conditions. 
"Burnt  out"  cattle  can  not  be  held  for  better  market  conditions. 

The  table  below  shows  the  average  daily  ration  of  cottonseed  meal 
and  hulls  in  this  experiment  by  periods  of  28  days  each : 

Table  17. — Average  quantity  of  feed  eaten  by  each  animal  daily. 
[Dec.  16, 1910,  to  Mar.  28, 1911, 103  days.] 


Period. 

Lot  1  (shelter). 

Lot  2  (no  shelter). 

4.19  pounds  cottonseed  meal. 

First  28  days 

16.63  pounds  cottonseed  hulls. 
5.05  pounds  cottonseed  meal. 

Second  28  days 

20.12  pounds  cottonseed  hulls. 
5.20  pounds  cottonseed  meal. 

Third  28  days 

19.51  pounds  cottonseed  hulls. 
5.18  pounds  cottonseed  meal. 

Last  19  days. 

18.69  pounds  cottonseed  hulls. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  test  the  cattle  averaged  578  and  ^85 
pounds  in  weight  in  lots  1  and  2,  respectively. 

These  cattle  were,  in  a  way,  accustomed  to  cottonseed  meal,  as 
they  had  received  a  small  feed  of  cottonseed  cake  for  several  weeks 
previous  to  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  yet  their  daily  allow- 
ance of  meal  was  below  3  pounds  an  animal  for  several  days  after 
the  test  begun.  This  amount  was  gradually  raised  and  each  steer 
ate  an  average  of  4.15  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  daily  duiing  the 
first  28  days;  along  with  this  amount  of  meal  an  average  of  18.11 
pounds  of  hulls  were  consumed  daily  by  each  animal.  They  were 
given  all  of  the  hulls  they  would  clean  up.  The  cattle  in  lot  2  ate 
practically  the  same  as  those  in  lot  1.  The  heaviest  feeding  of  cot- 
tonseed meal  occurred  in  lot  1  during  the  third  period,  when  an 
average  of  5.33  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  was  given  each  animal 
daily. 


44 


FEEDING  BEEP  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


The  feeding  continued  for  103  days,  yet  no  ill  results,  such  as  dizzi- 
ness, staggering,  or  blindness,  followed  the  use  of  the  cottonseed 
meal.  As  before  stated,  many  feedei-s,  on  account  of  the  excessive 
use  of  cottonseed  meal,  are  not  able  to  feed  for  more  than  80  days. 

WEIGHTS   AND   GAINS. 

Although  the  daily  allowance  of  cottonseed  meal  was  maintained 

at  a  rather  small  amount,  the  cattle  made  satisfactory  gains.     At 

the  same  time  no  losses  were  sustained  as  a  result  of  feeding  meal 

too  liberally. 

Table  18. — Weights  and  gains. 

[Dec.  10, 1910,  to  Mar.  28, 1911.] 


Lot. 

Number 

of 
cattle. 

Ration. 

initial 

weight 

Dec.  10, 

1910. 

Final 

weight 

Mar.  26, 

1911. 

Total 
gain  of 

each 
animal. 

Average 
daily 

gain  of 
each 

animal. 

1  (shelter) 

2  (no  shelter) 

33 
34 

Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed 

hulls. 
do 

Pounds. 
678 

585 

Pounds. 
754 

757 

Pounds. 
176 

172 

Pounds. 
1.71 

1.07 

Each  animal  in  lot  1,  fed  under  shelter,  weighed  on  an  average  578 
pounds  at  the  beginning  and  754  pounds  at  the  close  of  the  test, 
making  a  total  gain  of  176  pounds,  or  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.71 
pounds.  It  is  seen  that  the  cattle  which  had  no  shelter  (lot  2)  also 
made  good  gains,  as  each  one  made  a  total  gain  of  172  pounds  during 
the  test,  or  an  average  daily  gain  of  1 .67  pounds.  As  far  as  gains  were 
concerned,  the  shelter  was  of  no  practical  value,  as  the  cattle  with 
shelter  made  an  average  total  gain  of  only  4  pounds  more  than  the 
ones  without  shelter. 

QUANTITY  AND  COST  OF  FEED  REQUIRED  TO  MAKE  loo  POUNDS 

GAIN. 

Many  feeders  believe  that  a  fattening  animal  will  increase  in  weight 
dufing  the  winter  months  very  much  more  economically  when  he  is 
sheltered  than  when  he  is  forced  to  remain  out  in  the  open  weather. 
The  following  table  shows  that  there  are,  at  least,  no  striking  results 
to  be  secured  from  the  employment  of  shelter  for  fattening  animals 
under  the  conditions  of  this  test: 

Table  19. — Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain. 
[De<.  16, 1910,  to  Mar.  28, 1911.1 


Lot. 


Ration. 


Feed  re- 
quired to 
make  100 
pounds  of 
gain. 


Cost  to  make 

100  pounds 

of  gain. 


1  (shelter) 

2  (no  shelter) . 


(Cottonseed  meal 
\CottoHsecd  hulls 
f  Cottonseed  meal 
ICottooseed  hulls 


Pounds. 

288 

1,120 

292 

1,122 


$7.66 
7.72 


VALUE  OF   SHELTER  FOR  FATTENING  CATTLE.  45 

When  shelter  was  employed  Oot  1)  it  required  288  pounds  of 
cottonseed  meal  and  1,120  pounds  of  hulls,  at  a  cost  of  $7.66,  to  make 
100  pounds  of  gain.  When  no  shelter  was  provided  (lot  2)  the  same 
gains  were  made  with  292  pounds  of  meal  and  1,122  pounds  of  hulls, 
at  a  cost  of  $7.72.  In  other  words,  the  shelter  saved  6  cents  on  each 
100  pounds  of  gain  made. 

Sheds  or  barns  can  not  be  built  and  maintained  with  this  small 
saving.  Other  considerations,  however,  may  make  it  profitable  to 
employ  a  good  shelter  for  fattening  cattle.  For  instance,  when  it  is 
impossible  to  save  the  manure  in  any  other  way  it  is,  without  doubt, 
a  wise  thing  to  build  barns  or  sheds  for  conserving  it. 

PROFITS  ON  COTTONSEED  MEAL  AND  HULLS  AS  A  RESULT  OF 
FEEDING  THEM  TO  THE  CATTLE. 

In  this  test  the  cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  were  sold  by  means  of 
the  cattle  at  a  handsome  profit.  Furthermore,  the  fact  must  not  be 
overlooked  that  the  greater  part  of  the  fertilizer  value  of  these  feeds 
was  left  on  the  farm  after  they  had  passed  through  the  cattle.  The 
financial  statement  shows  that  with  lot  1  the  total  cost  of  the  meal 
and  hulls  was  $444.17,  and  there  remained  a  clear  profit  of  $227.15 
after  paying  all  expenses.  With  lot  2  the  result  was  even  better,  the 
feed  in  this  case  costing  $451.81  and  the  net  profit  being  $254.34. 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT. 

This  mixed  bunch  of  cattle  was  bought  during  the  fall  of  1910  for 
an  average  price  of  $2.30  per  hundredweight.  When  they  were  ready 
to  be  shipped  they  were  driven  3  miles  to  the  railroad  at  Bellamy, 
Ala.,  and  sent  to  New  Orleans,  where  slaughter  data  and  sale  prices 
were  secured.  It  cost  40  cents  a  hundredweight  to  ship  them  to 
New  Orleans,  when  freight,  commission,  yardage,  weighing,  labor,  and 
feed  en  route  were  all  taken  into  consideration.  At  New  Orleans  the 
cattle  in  lot  1  sold  for  an  average  price  of  $5  per  hundredweight,  while 
those  in  lot  2  sold  for  an  average  price  of  $5.06  per  hundredweight. 

Financial  statement. 
Lot  1.  Shelter: 

By  sale  of  33  cattle,  24,134  pounds,  at  $5  per  hundredweight $1, 206.  70 

To  33  cattle,  19,080  pounds,  at  $2.30  per  hundredweight $438.  84 

To  11,677  pounds  cottonseed  meal,  at  $26  per  ton 216.  80 

To  64,962  pounds  cottonseed  hulls,  at  $7  per  ton 227.  37 

To  shipping  expenses,  at  40  cents  per  hundredweight 96.  54 

Total  expense 979.  55 

Total  profit 227.15 

Profit  per  animal 6.  88 


46 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


Lot  2.  No  shelter. 

By  sale  of  34  cattle,  24,963  pounds,  at  $5.06  per  hundredweight $1, 263. 13 1 

To  34  cattle,  19,875  pounds,  at  $2.30  per  hundredweight $457. 13 

To  17,084  pounds  cottonseed  meal,  at  $26  per  ton 222.  09 

To  65,634  pounds  cottonseed  hulls,  at  $7  per  ton 229.  72 

To  shipping  expenses,  at  40  cents  per  hundredweight 99.  85 

Total  expense 1, 008.  79 

Total  profit 254.34 

Profit  per  animal 7.  48 

Each  animal  in  lot  1  returned  a  clear  profit  of  $6.88  above  all 
expenses,  whUe  each  animal  in  lot  2  returned  a  profit  of  $7.48. 
Therefore  the  animals  which  had  no  shelter  were  finally  more  profit- 
able than  those  which  were  provided  with  a  good  bam.  This  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  cattle  without  shelter  sold  for  a  little  higher 
price  at  New  Orleans  than  the  others. 

SUMMARY. 
Table  21. — Summary  statement. 


Lot  1  (shelter). 


Lot  2  (no  shelter). 


Average  cost  of  cattle  in  fall  1910, 

per  hundredweight. 
Ration  for  each  lot 

Average    initial    weight    of    each 

animal. 
Average  final  weight  of  each  animal. . 
A^'erage  total  gain  of  each  animal . . . 
Number  of  days  on  feed 

Average  daily  gain 

Feed  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain 

Cost  to  make  100  pounds  gain 

Selling  price  of  cattle  per  hundred- 
weight in  New  Orleans. 

Entire  cost  per  hundredweight  to 
ship  them  to  New  Orleans. 

Total  profit  on  each  animal 


$2.30 

Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed 

hulls. 
578  pounds 

754  jwunds 

176  pounds , 

Dec.  16,  1910,  to  Mar.  28,  1911 

(103  days). 

1.71  pounds 

28S  pounds  meal,  1,120  pounds 

hulls. 

$7.66 

$5.00 

$0.40 

$6.88 


$2.30. 

Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed 

hulls. 
585  pounds. 

757  pounds. 
172  pounds. 
Dec.  16,  1910,  to  Mar.   28,  1911 

(103  days). 
1.67  pounds. 
292  pounds  meal,  1,122  pounds 

hulls. 
$7.72. 
$5.06. 

$0.40. 

$7.48. 


1.  The  cattle  (67  in  number)  used  in  the  test  were  a  mixed  lot  of 
steers,  heifers,  and  cows,  averaging  from  2  to  4  years  of  age.  As  the 
original  object  of  the  work  (not  reported,  however,  in  this  publica- 
tion) was  to  study  methods  of  making  and  saving  manure,  the  quality 
of  the  animals  was  somewhat  neglected. 

2.  The  object  of  the  experiment,  herein  reported,  was  to  study  the 
value,  if  any,  of  shelter  in  fattening  southern  beef  animals. 

3.  The  cattle  cost  on  the  average  $2.30  per  hundredweight. 

4.  The  test  was  inaugurated  December  16,  1910,  and  closed  March 
28,  1911,  a  period  of  103  days. 

5.  The  cattle  were  divided  into  2  lots,  one  without  shelter  and  one 
with  shelter.  Both  lots  were  fed  similar  rations  of  cottonseed  meal 
and  cottonseed  hulls. 

6.  At  the  beginning  of  the  test  the  average  weight  of  each  animal 
in  lots  1  and  2  was  578  and  585  pounds,  respectively. 


VALUE   OF    SHELTER   FOR   FATTENING    CATTLE.  47 

7.  Each  animal  in  lots  1  and  2  made  an  average  total  gain  of  176 
and  172  pounds,  respectively. 

8.  In  lot  1,  where  shelter  was  employed,  it  required  288  pounds  of 
cottonseed  meal  and  1,120  pounds  of  hulls  to  make  100  pounds  of 
gain  in  live  weight,  while  in  lot  2,  where  no  shelter  was  used,  292 
pounds  of  meal  and  1,122  pounds  of  hulls  were  required  to  make 
the  same  gains. 

9.  It  cost  $7.66  and  $7.72  to  make  100  pounds  of'increase  in  live 
weight  in  lots  1  and  2,  respectively. 

10.  Shelter  saved  only  6  cents  on  each  100  pounds  of  gaia  made. 

11.  A  clear  profit  of  $6.88  and  $7.48  was  made  on  each  animal  in 
lots  1  and  2,  respectively. 


r 


IV.  EARLY  COMPARED  WITH  LATE  FATTENING  OF  STEERS 

ON  PASTURE. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  farmer  who  fattens  cattle  on  pasture  is  often  undecided  as  to 
the  proper  time  to  sell.  The  cattle  may  be  sold  during  the  early 
summer  months,  after  being  fed  for  90  days,  or  they  may  be  carried 
throughout  the  whole  pasture  period  and  sold  late  in  the  fall  just 
before  the  pastures  are  exhausted.  The  feeder,  however,  is  familiar 
with  the  fact  that  fat  cattle  bring  better  prices  in  the  early  than  in 
the  late  summer  months.  Few  cattle  of  any  kind  are  offered  for  sale 
during  May,  June,  and  the  early  part  of  July,  so  that  if  fat  steers  are 
held  and  not  marketed  until  August  and  September  they  come  in 
competition  with  thousands  of  grass-fat  cattle.  This  large  supply  of 
grass  cattle  naturally  depresses  the  prices  of  all  classes.  However, 
gains  are  made  cheaply  during  the  pasture  season,  and  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  cheaper  prices  obtain  late  in  the  summer,  the  feeder 
often  can  not  decide  whether  it  would  pay  better  to  rush  his  animals 
for  the  early  summer  market,  or  feed  a  small  supplementary  feed, 
thus  making  the  gains  cheaply  and  slowly,  and  sell  late  in  the 
summer. 

In  order  to  assist  the  farmer  in  dealing  with  this  feeding  problem, 
the  experimental  work  hereinafter  described  was  undertaken.  When 
steers  are  bought  right,  fed  correctly,  and  sold  intelligently,  it  has 
been  previously  demonstrated  that  satisfactory  profits  can  be 
realized  when  they  are  fattened  on  pasture.^  The  present  test  was 
carried  out  with  the  object  of  studying  the  problem  as  to  whether  it 
is  more  profitable  to  begin  feeding  early  in  the  spring  and  feed  a 
rather  heavy  ration  of  cottonseed  cake  along  with  the  pasture  for  a 
short  time,  or  to  delay  the  inauguration  of  the  feeding  until  the 
pasture  grasses  are  well  started  in  the  spring  and  feed  a  light  ration  of 
cake  along  with  the  pasture  for  a  longer  period  of  time. 

PLAN  OF  THE  WORK. 

The  test,  extending  over  three  years,  was  carried  on  during  the 
pasture  seasons  of  1909,  1910,  and  1911.  The  cattle  in  each  case 
were  bought  the  previous  fall,  because  they  could  be  bought  much 

1  See  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  131. 

48 


COMPARISON   OF  EARLY  AND  LATE  FATTENING.  49 

cheaper  in  the  fall  than  in  the  spring.  In  fact,  steers  in  this  section 
can  hardly  be  purchased  at  all  during  the  spring  months.  As  they 
were  not  to  be  fattened  until  the  following  summer,  it  was  necessary 
to  make  a  study  of  the  cheapest  and  best  methods  of  getting  them 
through  the  winter  months.  However,  this  part  of  the  test  is  not 
presented  here.  Some  results  of  wintering  steers  preparatory  to 
summer  fattening  may  be  seen  in  Part  II  of  this  bulletin,  and  in 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  131. 

When  the  grass  appeared  in  the  spring  the  winter  feeding  was  dis- 
continued, and  the  pasture  fattening  work  inaugurated.  The  feed- 
ing was  done  on  the  farm  of  Messrs.  Cob,b  and  McMillan,  of  Sumter 
County,  Ala.  They  purchased  the  cattle  and  the  feed,  and  provided 
the  pastures,  which  were  divided  into  various  fields  in  order  to 
facilitate  the  work.  The  bureau  and  the  Alabama  Experiment 
Station  provided  a  trained  man  to  live  on  the  farm  and  have  personal 
supervision  of  the  tests.  Mr.  W.  F.  Ward,  one  of  the  authors  of  this 
publication,  was  stationed  on  the  farm. 

The  weight  of  each  steer  was  secured  at  the  beginning  and  end  of 
each  test,  and  the  total  weight  of  each  lot  was  noted  every  28  days. 
When  the  steers  were  sold  some  of  them  had  to  be  driven  9  miles  to 
the  shipping  point  at  Scooba,  Miss.,  while  others  were  driven  12 
miles  to  Epes,  Ala,,  for  loading. 

THE  CATTLE  AND  THE  PASTURE. 

As  far  as  possible  grade  Aberdeen-Angus,  Shorthorn,  Hereford, 
and  Red  Polled  steers  were  employed ;  a  few  animals  had  a  piledomi- 
nance  of  Jersey  and  scrub  breeding.  They  were  all  bought  of  farmers 
in  Sumter,  Wilcox,  Marengo,  and  neighboring  counties,  so  they  repre- 
sented fairly  accurately  the  average  cattle  of  the  western  part  of 
Alabama.  In  age  they  varied  from  2  to  4  years.  As  will  be  seen 
later,  the  average  weight  at  the  beginning  of  the  test  was  about 
640  pounds.  When  compared  with  northern  cattle  it  is  seen  that 
they  were  small,  but  they  were  as  large  as  the  average  of  the  State, 

The  cattle  were  divided  into  two  lots,  one  early  and  one  late 
fattening,  in  each  of  the  three  years  during  which  the  experiment 
lasted.  The  early  fattening  lots  had  the  designation  lot  F  in  each 
year,  and  the  late  fattening  lots  were  called  lot  B.  There  were, 
therefore,  three  lots  F  and  three  lots  B. 

The  summer  pastures  used  in  these  experiments  consisted  of  a 
mixture  of  sweet  clover  (MelUotus),  Japan  clover  (Lespedeza), 
Johnson  grass,  crab  grass,  and  some  Bermuda  grass.  The  sweet 
clover  became  available  for  grazing  about  April  1,  while  the  Japan 
clover  afforded  practically  no  grazing  until  June  15.  In  some  sec- 
tions of  the  country  sweet  clover  is  considered  a  pest,  as  stock  will 


50  FEEDING  BEEP  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 

not  eat  it,  but  in  the  South,  or  at  least  in  Alabama,  all  kinds  of  stock 
eat  it  with  great  relish;  they  take  to  it  as  readily  as  to  alfalfa. 

The  pasture  was  divided  into  fields,  the  size  of  each  one  depending 
upon  the  number  of  cattle  grazed  upon  it,  and  also  upon  whether 
the  steers  were  to  be  fed  a  light  or  a  heavy  supplementary  feed. 
The  object  was  to  have  an  abundance  of  pasture  for  each  lot  of  cattle. 
Tlie  early  fattening  lots  of  cattle  (lot  F)  were  turned  on  the  pasture 
at  a  very  early  date,  in  fact  before  the  grasses  had  become  thoroughly 
established.     The  exact  dates  will  be  given  later  on. 

The  cattle  were  fed  but  once  a  day.  This  was  done  about  sundown, 
so  that  they  would  all  come  out  to  the  troughs,  which  were  placed 
at  convenient  places  in  the  pastures.  No  feed  was  thrown  upon 
the  ground. 

No  shelter,  except  trees,  was  provided,  but  the  cattle  did  not  suffer 
from  the  heat,  as  the  pastures  contained  plenty  of  good  shade  trees. 
When  a  summer  shade  is  provided  cattle  will  suffer  no  more  from 
heat  in  Alabama  than  they  will  in  Illinois  or  Iowa. 

While  there  were  ticks  in  the  pasture  the  cattle  were  not  permitted 
to  become  badly  infested  with  them ;  a  dipping  vat  was  used  to  keep 
down  heavy  infestation.  In  the  three  years'  work,  during  which 
time  224  head  of  cattle  were  fattened,  only  one  or  two  cases  of  Texas 
fever  developed,  and  none  of  these  was  lost.  In  future  work  it  is 
expected  that  the  tick  will  be  entirely  eliminated. 

QUALITY  AND  PRICE  OF  FEEDS. 

The  cottonseed  cake  was  purchased  upon  the  market,  so  an  average 
market  price  was  taken  in  making  up  the  financial  statements. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  prices  vary  from  time  to 
time  and  from  place  to  place.  For  instance,  cottonseed  cake  is 
valued  at  $26  a  ton  in  this  publication,  but  at  the  present  writing 
(Dec.  20,  1911)  cake  can  be  purchased  for  $21  a  ton.  The  price 
mentioned  above,  $26  a  ton,  very  closely  approximates  the  average 
price  for  the  years  1909,  1910,  and  1911.  The  pasture  is  valued  at 
50  cents  per  month  per  steer. 

The  cottonseed  cake  had  been  broken  into  nut  size  and  sacked. 
This  was  done  by  the  mill.  The  cake  can  be  purchased  in  the  large 
cake  size,  just  as  it  comes  from  the  press,  for  about  $2  a  ton  less  than 
the  nut  size.  Some  feeders  find  that  it  pays  to  break  the  cake  on 
their  own  farms.  As  a  whole,  the  cake  was  of  excellent  quality. 
Poor  and  damaged  cake  was  fed  a  few  times,  when  the  good  mate- 
rial could  not  be  secured. 

DAILY  RATIONS. 

The  steers  in  lot  B  each  year  were  fed  longer  than  those  in  lot  F, 
the  object  being  to  start  lot  F  on  feed  a  few  weeks  before  lot  B,  and 
also  to  give  the  animals  a  heavier  supplementary  ration  of  cotton- 


COMPARISON    OP  EARLY  AND   LATE   FATTENING. 


51 


seed  cake.  This  plan  was  followed  out  except  in  1911.  The  spring 
of  that  year  was  an  unusually  dry  one,  and  as  a  result  the  pastures 
were  not  ready  for  grazing  as  early  as  usual,  consequently  the  lots 
were  started  on  feed  the  same  date  but  sold  at  different  times.  The 
steers  in  lot  B  were  started  on  feed  April  9  in  1909,  April  7  in  1910, 
and  April  21  in  1911.  Those  in  lot  F  were  started  on  feed  March 
19  in  1909,  March  25  in  1910,  and  April  21  in  1911.  The  cattle  in  the 
B  lot  were  sold  August  26  in  1909,  August  2  in  1910,  and  September 
8  in  1911.  Those  in  the  F  lot  were  sold  August  5  in  1909,  June  23  in 
1910,  and  August  27  in  1911.  Thus  the  steers  in  the  B  lot  were  fed 
an  average  of  137§  days,  while  those  in  the  F  lot  were  fed  an  average 
of  119§  days. 

The  pastures  upon  which  the  two  lots  of  cattle  grazed  were  not 
exactly  similar  throughout  the  whole  test,  as  those  in  the  F  lot  were 
started  at  an  earlier  date  (except  in  1911)  than  those  in  the  B  lot. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  pastures  in  the  case  of  the  F  lot  were  of  very 
small  value  during  the  first  two  or  three  weeks  of  the  tests ;  however, 
the  experiment  was  outlined  to  learn  whether  it  is  profitable  to  start 
steers  on  feed  during  the  very  early  spring  months.  On  account  of 
the  fact  that  the  pastures  were  short  at  this  early  date  the  cattle  of 
the  F  lot  were  started  on  a  rather  heavy  feed  of  cottonseed  cake. 

Table  22. — Daily  feed  of  cottowieed  cake  by  period;  of  28  days. 


Period. 


Lot  B  (long  feeding). 


Apr.  9  to 

Aug.  26, 

1909. 


Apr.  7  to 

Aug.  2, 

1910. 


Apr.  21  to 

Sept.  8, 

1911. 


Lot  F  (short  feeaing). 


Mar.  19  to 

Aug.  5, 

1909. 


Mar.  25  to 

June  23, 

1910. 


Apr.  21  to 

Aug.  27, 

1911. 


First  28  days. . . 
Second  28  days. 
Third  28  days.. 
Fourth  28  days. 
Fifth  28  day.s... 
Sixth  28  days.. 


Pound*. 
2.35 
3.33 
3.54 
3.67 
3.83 
M.OO 


Pounds. 
2.21 
4.41 
3.80 
3.65 
«3.50 


Pounds. 
2.88 
3.76 
3.72 
3.76 
»3.76 


Pounds. 
3.24 
3.91 
4.82 
5.00 
5.00 


Pounds. 

3.27 

4.57 

5.00 

15.00 


Pounds. 
3.40 
4.87 
4.97 
5.00 
<5.00 


1  For  7  days. 
»  For  6  days. 


«  For  29  days. 
« For  17  days. 


s  For  14  days. 


It  is  seen  that  the  steers  in  the  B  lot  were  given  from  2.21  to  2.88 
pounds  of  cottonseed  cake  at  the  inauguration  of  the  tests,  while 
those  in  the  F  lot  ate  from  3.24  to  3.40  pounds  each  daily.  At  the 
close  of  the  tests  each  steer  in  the  B  lot  was  consuming  from  3.5 
pounds  to  4  pounds  of  cake,  while  those  in  the  F  lot  were  eating,  on 
the  average,  5  pounds  daily.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  was  prac- 
tically no  difference  in  the  total  quantity  of  cake  fed  to  each  steer 
in  lots  B  and  F,  the  main  difference  being  that  the  steers  in  the  F  lot 
ate  their  amounts  of  feed  in  the  fewer  number  of  days. 

While,  to  many  feeders,  the  daily  feed  of  cottonseed  cake  seems 
small,  still  reasonably  good  gains  were  secured  when  the  size  of  the 


62 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


cattle  is  considered.  The  steers  in  the  B  lot  averaged  practically 
600  pounds  in  weight  at  the  inauguration  of  the  tests,  and  an  average 
daily  gain  of  1.87  pounds  was  secured.  Those  in  the  F  lot  were 
somewhat  larger,  averaging  practically  690  pounds  in  weight,  and  an 
average  daily  gain  of  2.04  pounds  was  obtained.  Large  amounts  of 
cake  are  not  required  to  obtain  good  gains  when  the  cattle  are  grazing 
a  reasonably  good  pasture.  It  is  in  any  event  impracticable  to  feed 
a  heavy  ration  of  cake  along  with  pasture,  as  scours  develop  quickly 
when  cottonseed  cake  is  fed  too  freely.  Scours  occurred  in  fact  in  a 
few  cases  when  no  more  than  5  pounds  of  cake  was  fed  each  steer  daily. 
In  the  North  and  Northwest,  where  corn  is  cheap,  it  is  practicable  and 
usually  profitable  to  supplement  the  pasture  with  a  daily  ration  of 
from  15  to  18  pounds  of  corn  daily  for  each  steer,  but  there  is  no  feed 
in  the  South  cheap  enough  to  be  used  in  such  large  amounts. 

TOTAL  AND  DAILY  GAINS. 

Table  23  outlines  the  initial  and  final  weights  and  the  gains  of  each 
lot,  also  the  average  total  and  daily  gains  of  each  steer. 

Table  23. — Weights  and  gains  (summary  of  S  years). 


Lot. 

Num- 
ber of 
steers. 

Days 
fedf. 

Year. 

Ration. 

Initial 
weight 
of  lot. 

Final 
weight 
of  lot. 

Total 

gain  of 

lot. 

Average 
total 

gain  of 

each 

.  steer. 

Average 
daily, 
gain. 

F  (short  period). . 

f       35 
\        30 
I       25 

140 

91 

128 

1909 
1910 
1911 

Pasture  and  cake 
do 

Pounds. 
25,321 
20,042 
16,522 

Pounds. 
34,919 
26,062 
22,808 

Pounds. 
9,598 
6,020 
6,286 

Pounds. 
274.2 
200.7 
257.4 

Pounds. 
1.96 
2.21 

do 

1.96 

3-year  average 

2.04 

75 

34 

I        25 

154 
119 
140 

1909 
1910 
1911 

Pasture  and  cake 
do. 

B  (long period)... 

47,916 
19,686 
14,123 

69,664 
27,514 
20,128 

21,748 
7,928 
6,005 

289.9 
233.2 
240.2 

1.88 
1  96 

do 

1  72 

3-year  average .... 

1.87 

These  cattle  were  from  2  to  4  years  old,  and  smaU  for  their  age.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  initial  weights  were  all 
taken  at  the  close  of  the  winter  months,  when  the  animals  were  in 
their  lightest  form.  The  steers  in  the  F  lot  averaged  723,  668,  and 
661  pounds  in  weight  at  the  inauguration  of  the  pasture  work  in  1909, 
1910,  and  1911,  respectively,  while  those  in  the  B  lot  averaged  639, 
576,  and  565  pounds,  respectively.  The  steers  in  the  F  lot,  the  short- 
fed  ones,  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.96,  2.21,  and  1.96  pounds  in 
1909,  1910,  and  1911,  respectively,  or  an  average  daily  gain  of  2.04 
pounds  for  the  three  years.  The  steers  in  the  B  lot,  the  long-fed 
cattle,  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.88,  1.96,  and  1.72  pounds  in 
1909,  1910,  and  1911,  respectively,  or  an  average  of  1.87  pounds  for 
the  three  years.  The  steers  in  the  F  lot  were  fed  a  heavier  ration  of 
cottonseed  cake  than  those  in  the  B  lot,  and  as  a  result  gained  more 


COMPARISON   OF  EARLY  AND   LATE  FATTENING. 


53 


rapidly.     When  the  size  of  the  cattle  is  taken  into  account  it  is  seen 
that  the  gains  were  satisfactory. 

At  the  end  of  the  feeding  periods  the  steers  in  the  F  lot  had  attained 
an  average  weight  of  998,  869,  and  885  pounds  in  1909,  1910,  and  1911, 
respectively,  while  those  in  the  B  lot  were  somewhat  smaller.  For 
southern  cattle  they  were  of  good  size — larger  than  the  average — 
but  the  southern  markets  prefer  larger  carcasses  than  these  cattle 
produced,  and  will  pay  a  premium  for  the  large  steers. 

QUANTITY  AND  COST  OF  FEED   REQUIRED  TO  MAKE  loo  POUNDS 

GAIN. 

Table  24  shows  the  number  of  pounds  of  feed  required  to  make  100 
pounds  of  gain  in  each  case,  the  cost  of  the  cottonseed  cake  to  make  the 
gains,  and  also  the  cost  to  make  the  increase  in  live  weight  when  both 
the  cake  and  the  pasture  are  charged  against  the  gains.  It  is  seen 
that  the  increase  in  live  weight  during  the  fattening  period  was  put 
on  at  a  profit;  that  is,  each  pound  added  to  the  weight  of  the  steers 
during  the  fattening  period  did  not  cost  as  much  as  it  could  be  sold 
for  on  the  market.  This  is  an  unusual  state  of  affairs  in  fattening 
cattle,  as  under  average  winter  conditions,  and  summ^^r  conditions, 
also,  when  a  heavy  supplementary  grain  feed  is  given,  each  pound  of 
increase  during  the  fattening  period  is  made  at  a  loss. 

The  economical  gains  in  these  tests  were  mainly  due  to  two  factors: 
First,  the  daily  gains  were  satisfactory,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
only  a  small  amount  of  high-priced  feeds  was  consumed  by  each  steer; 
and,  second,  the  animals  were  grazing  a  pasture — the  cheapest  feed 
that  can  possibly  be  obtained  in  Alabama.  When  a  large  amount  of 
concentrated  feed  is  used  to  supplement  the  pasture  the  cost  of  the 
increase  in  weight  will  be  much  more  expensive  than  was  the  case  in 
these  experiments. 

Table  24. — Quantity  and  cost  of  feed  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain. 


Lot. 

Number 

of 
steers. 

Year. 

Ration. 

Cottonseed 
cake  re- 
quired to 
make  100 
pounds  of 
gain. 

Cost  to  make  100 
pounds  of  gain. 

Cake. 

Cake  and 
pasture. 

(          35 
\           30 
I           25 

f            ^5 
I           25 

1909 
1910 
1911 

1909 
1910 
1911 

Pounds. 
224 
197 
244 

$2.91 
2.56 
3.17 

$3.76 

F  (short  period) 

do 

3.32 

do 

4.02 

3-year  average 

Pasture  and  cake 

220 

2.86 

3.69 

181 
176 
210 

2.35 
2.29 
2.73 

3.24 

B  (long  period) 

do 

3.24 

do 

3.70 

3-year  average 

185 

2.41 

3.33 

54 


FEEDING  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALABAMA. 


In  the  F  lot  it  is  seen  that  224,  197,  and  244  pounds  of  cottonseed 
cake  were  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  increase  in  live  weight  in 
the  years  1909,  1910,  and  1911,  respectively,  or,  averaging  the  three 
years,  220  pounds  of  cake  were  eaten  for  every  100  pounds  of  gain. 
In  the  B  lot  181,  176,  and  210  pounds  of  cake  were  fed  for  every  100 
pounds  of  gain  in  live  weight  in  1909,  1910,  and  1911,  respectively, 
or  an  average  for  the  three  years  of  185  pounds.  The  saving  of  cot- 
tonseed cake  in  favor  of  the  B  lot  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  steers  in 
these  lots  were  given  a  smaller  daily  allowance  than  those  in  the 
Flot. 

The  total  expense  in  the  F  lot  to  make  100  pounds  increase  in  live 
weight  when  the  pasture  and  cake  are  both  charged  against  the  gains 
was  $3.76,  $3.32,  and  $4.02  in  1909,  1910,  and  1911,  respectively,  or 
an  average  of  $3.69  for  the  three  years.  The  total  cost  to  make  the 
same  gains  in  the  B  lot  was  $3.24,  $3.24,  and  $3.70  in  1909,  1910,  and 
1911,  respectively,  or  an  average  of  $3.33  for  the  three  years. 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT. 

As  wUl  be  seen  in  the  table  below,  the  steers  were  purchased  at 
various  prices  at  the  beginning  of  the  tests.  They  cost  from  $2.95  to 
$3.50  per  hundredweight,  depending  upon  the  size  and  quality  of  the 
steers  and  the  year  in  which  they  were  purchased.  When  the  steers 
were  ready  for  sale  buyers  came  to  the  farm  and  purchased  them  on 
the  farm,  allowing  for  a  3  per  cent  shrink.  In  one  case  (lot  B,  1909) 
they  were  sold  as  low  as  $3.90  per  hundredweight  on  the  farm;  in  no 
instance  did  they  sell  for  more  than  $4.50  per  hundredweight.  After 
being  sold  they  were  shipped  to  various  southern  markets.  Two  or 
three  loads  were  sent  to  Meridian,  Miss.,  some  were  sent  to  Atlanta, 
Ga.,  while  several  carloads  were  shipped  to  New  Orleans.  The  table 
below  shows,  among  other  things,  the  initial  cost  of  the  cattle  each 
year,  the  selling  price  each  year,  and  the  total  profit  on  each  animal. 

Table  26. — Financial  statement. 


Lot. 

Num- 
ber of 
steers. 

Year. 

Ration. 

Initial 
price 
per 
hun- 
dred- 
weight. 

Initial 

cost  of 

each 

steer. 

Cost  of 
feed 

eaten 
by  each 

steer. 

Total 
cost  of 
each 
steer. 

Selling 
price 
per 
hun- 
dred- 
weight. 

Selling 
price 

or  each 
steer. 

Profit 

on 

each 

steer. 

F  (short  fed). 

f      35 
i      30 
1      25 

f      75 
\      25 

1909 
1910 
1911 

1909 
1910 
1911 

Pasture  and  cake. 

do 

do 

3-year  aver- 
age  

Pasture  and  cake . 
do 

$3.20 
3.20 
3.50 

123.15 
21,38 
23.13 

$10.33 
6.64 
9.98 

$33.48 
2a  02 
33.01 

$4,375 
4.50 
4.50 

$41.73 
37.92 
39.82 

$8.26 
9.90 
6.81 

3.28+ 

22.55 

9.08 

31.63 

4.46+ 

39.93 

aso 

B  (long  fed).. 

2.95 
2.95 
3.50 

18.85 
16.99 
19.77 

9.38 
7.33 
8.89 

28.23 
24.32 
2&66 

3.90 
4.50 
4.50 

35.14 
35.32 
35.14 

6.91 
11.00 

do 

6.48 

3-year  aver- 
age  

3.05+ 

17.80 

&91 

27.46 

4. 16+     36. 19 

7.73 

COMPARISON   OF  EARLY  AND  LATE   FATTENING. 


55 


It  is  seen  that  excellent  profits  were  made  in  all  the  tests.  In 
the  F  lot  clear  profits  of  $8.25,  $9.90,  and  $6.81  were  made  on  each 
steer  in  1909,  1910,  and  1911,  respectively;  an  average  profit  of  $8.30 
was  ma,de  on  each  animal.  In  the  B  lot  clear  profits  of  $6.91, 
$11,  and  $6.48  were  made  in  1909,  1910,  and  1911,  respectively.  In 
these  lots  an  average  profit  of  $7.73  was  secured  on  each  steer;  or, 
those  cattle  which  were  started  on  feed  early,  fed  a  heavy  ration  of 
cake  along  with  the  pasture,  and  marketed  early  in  the  summer 
months,  returned  a  slightly  greater  total  profit — $0.57  each — than 
the  ones  which  were  started  on  feed  later  and  finished  for  the  market 
at  a  late  date.  This  is  not  a  marked  difference,  however,  in  favor  of 
the  early  method  of  feeding.  The  greatest  advantage  in  favor  of 
the  early  method  of  fattening  cattle  during  the  summer  months  is 
one  that  does  not  appear  in  a  test  of  this  kind.  When  the  steers  are 
disposed  of  at  an  early  date  the  pastures  can  be  grazed  by  a  second 
bunch  of  cattle,  or  the  grass  has  an  opportunity  to  make  an  extra 
growth  before  cold  weather  sets  in,  thus  affording  extra  feed  for  the 
winter  months.  With  many  farmers  late  pastures  are  of  great  value 
in  saving  winter  feeds. 

SUMMARY. 
Table  27. — Summary  of  averages. 


LotB 
(long  fed). 


LotF 
(short  fed). 


Average  pounds  of  cottonseed  cake  eaten  by  each  steer  daily  in  1909 

Average  pound.s  of  cottonseed  cake  eaten  by  each  steer  daily  in  1910 

Average  pounds  of  cottonseed  cake  eaten  by  each  steer  daily  in  1911 

Average  daily  gains  for  three  years 

Average  number  of  pounds  of  cottonseed  cake  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain 

Average  cost  of  cottonseed  cake  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain 

Average  total  cost  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain  (both  pasture  and  cake  included) 

Average  initial  cost  of  steers  -per  hundredweight 

Average  selling  price  of  steers  per  hundredweight 

Average  profit  on  each  steer 


Pounds. 
3.40 
3.45 
3.60 
1.87 
185 

Dollars. 
2.41 
3.33 
3.05+ 
4.16+ 
7.73 


Pounds. 
4.39 
4.33 
4.66 
2.04 
220 

Dollars. 
2.86 
3.69 
3.28+ 
4.45+ 
8.30 


1.  The  object  of  this  part  of  the  work  was  to  determine  whether 
it  is  more  profitable  to  feed  steers  a  short  or  a  long  period  of  time 
when  they  are  being  fattened  on  pasture. 

2.  Grade  Aberdeen-Angus,  Shorthorn,  Hereford,  and  Red  Polled 
steers,  with  a  few  commoner  ones,  were  used.  They  were  bought 
in  Sumter  and  neighboring  counties  and  represented  fairly  accurately 
the  average  cattle  of  the  western  part  of  Alabama. 

3.  The  steers  were  fed  on  pasture  and  cottonseed  cake  during 
the  following  periods  of  time: 

Lot  B  (long  fed):  1909,  Apr.  9  to  Aug.  26;  1910,  Apr.  7  to  Aug. 
2;  1911,  Apr.  21  to  Sept.  8.  Lot  F  (short  fed):  1909,  Mar.  19  to 
Aug.  5;  1910,  Mar.  25  to  June  23;  1911,  Apr.  21  to  Aug.  27. 


56  FEEDINO  BEEF  CATTLE  IN  ALAJ^^il*/^.  "  '  ' 

4.  The  following  average  daily  foods  of  cako  were  given: 

Lot  B  (long  fed):  1909,  3.40  pounds;  1910,  3,45  pounds;  1911, 
3.60  pounds.  Lot  F  (short  fed):  1909,  4.39  pounds;  1910,  4.33 
pounds;  1911,  4.66  pounds. 

5.  The  steers  in  tlie  B  lot  made  a  daily  average  gain  of  1.87  pounds, 
while  those  in  the  F  lot  gained  at  the  rate  of  2.04  pounds  eacli  day. 

6.  There  were  required  18.5  pounds  of  cottonseed  cake  to  make 
100  pounds  of  gain  in  the  B  lot,  while  220  pounds  of  cake  were  oaten 
in  the  F  lot  to  make  the  same  gain. 

7.  When  the  pasture  and  cake  are  both  charged  against  the  gains, 
it  cost  $3.33  and  $3.69  to  make  100  pounds  of  gain  in  the  B  and  F  lots, 
respectively. 

8.  The  steers  in  the  B  lot  cost  on  an  average  $3.0.5+  per  hundred- 
weight at  the  beginning  of  the  tests;  they  sold  for  $4.16+  per  hun- 
dredweiglit  at  the  close.  The  steers  in  the  F  lot  cost  $3.28+  per 
hundredweight  and  sold  for  $4.45+  per  hundredweight. 

9.  Clear  average  profits  of  $7.73  per  steer  in  the  B  lot  and  $8.30 
per  steer  in  the  F  lot  were  made. 

10.  An  additional  advantage  in  selling  the  cattle  early  is  that  the 
pastures  have  an  opportunity  to  make  an  extra  growth  after  the 
cattle  are  taken  off,  thus  providmg  feed  for  the  early  winter  months. 
In  fact,  this  is  probably  the  chief  advantage  to  be  secured  in  selling 
cattle  at  an  early  date. 


ADDITIONAL  COPIES  of  this  publication 
^1-  may  be  procured  from  the  Supertotend- 
ENT  OF  Documents,  Government  I'rintlng 
Office,  Washington,  D.  C,  at  10  cents  per  copy 


